It’s obvious that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure.
I’ll address some of the points in the answer and counterclaim.
Answer
1. Denies that the complaint is what it is. The “deprive Roberge of his constitutional rights of free speech” bit is ludicrous.
2. Denies the Court’s jurisdiction, citing ignorance as a reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if you, as a U.S. District Court, have jurisdiction over this action, so I say you don’t.” The statements about the cybersquatting claim demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of “original jurisdiction.”
4. Denies that the venue is proper, citing ignorance as the reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if Vermont is the proper place to try this case, so I say that it is not.”
Affirmative Defenses
1. “TWI has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” That’s ludicrous! TWI stated several such claims. Whether or not they can prove them is a different matter.
Counterclaim
Count 1 is trivial.
Counts 2 and 3 are ludicrous.
Count IV
Grounds for Cancellation of trademarks THE WAY and THE WAY INTERNATIONAL
First of all, this is not an issue for the Court to decide in this case. If Roberge believes that there are grounds to cancel a mark or marks, he should follow procedures established by law, pay the prescribed fee, and file a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
“Ground” 1: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1064(5)(a), which applies to certification marks, not trademarks or service marks.
“Ground” 2: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1120 and 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1), neither of which has to do with canceling registration of a mark.
“Ground” 3: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1152(a) & (e), which have to do with registration, not cancellation of registration, of marks. Beyond that, points 44 and 45 are ludicrous, and 46-48 are irrelevant, even if true.
Damages sought: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which is applicable only if TWI prevails.
I posted a bit about the answer and counterclaim, but it's being held for moderation, due to one or more trigger words.
Regarding this: "And yes, I hope to have many things to talk about in front of the jury, who will be comprised of everyday folk who will be judging TWI by the way their attorney acts and the actual issues."
Those issues don't include TWI's beliefs, teachings, cemetary policy, unrelated court cases, etc. Most of what you hope to say to the jury, they will never hear.
wonder why they decided to sue you now ? they're trying to get their lawyers to take the class ?
If TWI's timeline is even close to correct, it's pretty obvious. Pat had not been using domain. In November, TWI discovered that he had begun using it to link to Excultworld, so they demanded that he stop and that he transfer the domain to them. He stopped, but in February, he put the domain up for sale, so they proceeded with the suit.
Your point is well taken. My point was that they did not have to say that VPW had a doctorate for him to have a ministry. They knew it was phony and did it anyway. This proves their intent to deceive.
And TWI continued to say Dr even when the discussion came up about his "doctorate". They could have rectified an honest mistake and stopped promoting him as Dr. unless they intended the deception to continue...
In proving my case against TWI and their having malicious motives towards me.
I am using examples of TWI's behavior along these same lines with others to prove a pattern of willfull corporate misconduct as TWI's policy, and not an isolated one in my case.
It is TWI's long established pattern, and should be allowed as it is relevant to the issues of my case .
Your point is well taken. My point was that they did not have to say that VPW had a doctorate for him to have a ministry. They knew it was phony and did it anyway. This proves their intent to deceive.
Why does this remind of a court case a couple I know went through? The ex-husband had one great case built showing years of lies and deception, a very reputable and over paid lawyer.
When they appeared in court and his legal representation started to show all they had against the couple, well; dang if the judge just didn’t say this case is not about the couples history or credibility! Now if you have no legitimate arguments why this court shouldn’t find in favor of the plaintiffs, then sit down and shut-up!
quote: Are Jehovah's Witnesses considered a "Christian" organization? How about the Mormons?
Not my right to say. But, what is the expectation of the general public about these groups is the real question of the lawsuit, and did TWI misrepresent themselves?
quote:If I buy a "Rev" title or a PHd on the Internet, regardless of how much work I did to get the title, am I entitled to call myself a Rev or a Dr.?
The first thing I would ask you in discovery and then later on the stand was where did you earn your degree? The rest of the discussion is down the toilet after that if you just bought it on the net.
Whether you may have done the work for a degree is not the problem. The problem is did you do the work to the satisfaction of an accredited school whose job is to certify that students have done the required course study to the satisfaction of established standards?
By the way, you can go to an accredited college and have yourself tested for self study/life experience and if you pass, you can get real college credit.
Many of us may have done the work to qualify for a specific degree. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that it was done under the supervision of an accredited institution as per their requirements.
If I studied medicine on my own enough to know the material and started passing myself off as an MD, would that be fraud?
The answer would be yes as evidenced by the handcuffs on your wrists as you are led away by the police who caught you pretending to be doctor .....
Pat, it's been said that Victor Paul's doctorate was unaccredited, but was "experimental" at that time. He did receive a diploma from them, from a ceremony, but it's still unrecognized by the establishment. I don't know if you can do this, but could you possibly find out how many diploma's were given out by Pike's Peak, and what are the disposition of the folks who got diploma's from them? I'd like to know if you could get someone who actually got a diploma from there, who might agree with your assessment? Don't know if that's possible after all this time but it might be worth checking out...
I see that my post that was held for moderation because of a “trigger word” has still not shown up. I’ll post essentially the same thing again, with the trigger word (a surname beginning with “R”) removed.
It’s obvious to me that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure. It will be even more obvious to lawyers, including the judge.
I’ll address a few points in the answer and counterclaim.
Answer
1. Denies that the complaint is what it is. The bit about depriving constitutional rights of free speech is ludicrous.
2. Denies the Court’s jurisdiction, citing ignorance as a reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if you, as a U.S. District Court, have jurisdiction over this action, so I say you don’t.” The statements about the cybersquatting claim demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of “original jurisdiction.”
4. Denies that the venue is proper, citing ignorance as the reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if the Vermont District is the proper place to try this case, so I say that it is not.”
Each of these demonstrates or outright proclaims ignorance or lack of understanding of applicable law, even though it is specifically cited in the corresponding points of the complaint. Beyond that, points 2 and 4 use ignorance as grounds to tell the Court that it does not have jurisdiction and that it is an improper venue. Not a good start.
Affirmative Defenses
1. “TWI has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” That’s ludicrous! TWI stated several such claims. Whether or not they can prove them is a different matter.
Counterclaim
Points 1-15 are irrelevant, except that point 1 strongly suggests a longstanding knowledge of TWI’s marks and point 6, if true, could be applicable to THE WAY mark, but not THE WAY INTERNATIONAL mark.
Count I is trivial. At best, it points out a few errors in the original claim.
Count II is ludicrous. Points 25 and 26 are examples of TWI doing exactly as the law provides. Points 27-30 are irrelevant to the case.
Count III is also ludicrous. Point 32 actually supports TWI’s position.
Count IV
Grounds for Cancellation of trademarks THE WAY and THE WAY INTERNATIONAL
First of all, this is not an issue for the Court to decide in this case. If one believes that there are grounds to cancel registration of a mark or marks, then he should follow procedures established by law. That is, he should pay the prescribed fee and file a petition, stating the grounds relied on, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
“Ground” 1 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1064(5)(a), which applies to certification marks, not trademarks or service marks.
“Ground” 2 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1120 and 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1), neither of which has to do with canceling registration of a mark.
“Ground” 3 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1152(a) & (e), which have to do with registration, not cancellation of registration, of marks. Beyond that, points 44 and 45 are ludicrous, and 46-48 are irrelevant, even if true.
Damages sought: Cites 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which is applicable only if TWI prevails.
quote: I don't know if you can do this, but could you possibly find out how many diploma's were given out by Pike's Peak, and what are the disposition of the folks who got diploma's from them? I'd like to know if you could get someone who actually got a diploma from there, who might agree with your assessment? Don't know if that's possible after all this time but it might be worth checking out...
The idea that TWI committed some sort of misrepresentation of "Christian" beliefs is so vague as to be ridiculous.
Quick! Answer the following! What are the real Christian beliefs?
--Baptism: Sprinkle, dunk, or ignore?
--Saints: Icons or idolatry?
--Clergy: Celibate or just guys in collars/robes/neckties?
You see what I mean. As long as any church even acknowledges Christ in some way, they can't be said to have misrepresented a "Christian" belief, even if they think he's a blue-furred Venusian who secretly plays goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs.
It’s obvious to me that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure. It will be even more obvious to lawyers, including the judge.
I’ll address a few points in the answer and counterclaim.
I understand where you are coming from, but can you take this to a more private forum? Like a private post to Roberge and discuss all that? It seems to me that PJ is trying to tell us we can fight back and shows us a little how to do that. I don't think TWI needs these ideas coming from GS. I don't think that was the idea here.
If I read it right, PJ, while saying most Christian organizations support the Trinity and the Way pushes themselves off as a Christian organization, they do so deceptively, as opposed to The Path of Christ Ministry which states the fact first in its pages.
The difference is deception in the matter of the Trinity, not just the opposition to the Trinity.
Could all that have opposing opinions please post privately to PJ? Some may be worthwhile to him, but for obvious reasons, let's help him out here. TWI does have this coming. It is nothing more than a bully organization that threatens people and takes their money. Bottom line, the ethics practiced by TWI are non-Christian by biblical standard.
I guess some of you are going to chew my butt out. But that's how I feel.
What, trying to deceive TWI by giving the *appearance* of unity here?????
Majority of all the counter claims and counter suit fall under the heading of opinions
IS TWI a Christian outfit? Only by crossing the lines of freedom of worship and separation of church and state, plus setting a mandate by making a legal definition of Christian and/or Christian group would any judge ever rule on this.
VPW’s degree, they can produce documentation he did the work. To say that Pikes Peak was a paper mill is an opinion. Granted that it is an opinion that may be based on facts. Problem with this is that the court would have to declare all degrees null and void from that institution to find in favor of this.
Corps Chalet was used for a short period of time for the purpose it was built. TWI owned it and had every legal right to change the use because of the need at that time. Moral and ethical? Nope, but if they used it for one night to allow some visiting WC no one can prove they built it with the intent to be LCM’s family home.
But then this case is about using their name to direct traffic to a site against them. There may be 40 some places using variations of their *mark* in northern Ohio, but only one web site that used that name to get the *truth* out. But a majority of that *truth* is all based in opinions also.
So, Eagle; you asking the posters here to act like them?????????
Look forward to your equally thorough analysis of TWI's complaint. It should be interesting since as you said in a previous thread that you despise them.
quote:VPW’s degree, they can produce documentation he did the work. To say that Pikes Peak was a paper mill is an opinion. Granted that it is an opinion that may be based on facts. Problem with this is that the court would have to declare all degrees null and void from that institution to find in favor of this.
The state board of education verified the facts that Pikes Peak was not accredited when I called them.
And yes, anyone with a degree from Pikes Peak or other similar unacredited institutions would be ruled as invalid.
Anyone who has used a diploma mill degree on their resume for a government position and got caught know this, because they would be reading GS from prison.
quote:But a majority of that *truth* is all based in opinions also.
A bogus claim that has been made many times by our critics but never done so with specifics that can be verified...
quote:Majority of all the counter claims and counter suit fall under the heading of opinions
OH Really? Is that why for most of them I submitted hard evidence called exhibits to the judge?
Edited by pjroberge
quote:The difference is deception in the matter of the Trinity, not just the opposition to the Trinity.
Actually, that is what some posters have zoned in on, versus what was actually said. I alleged under condition #3 to cancel their trademarks that TWI disparaged the christian religion by their actions and corporate policies. The trinity item is but one of the examples, not THE example.
How many times did TWI in their publications, SNS tapes and meetings run down the religion that they say they are a supposed part of? Their view of the trinity is not the central issue, just a part of it.
quote: "The Way in the acts of the Apostles, the Christian religion" (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Page 3640)
I allege that TWI not only disparages the christian religion, but claimed ownership of christianity by registering The Way trademark knowing that it represented many groups, books etc, and it was not theirs to own or register, as TWI does not own Christ.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
41
41
60
Popular Days
May 5
35
May 4
32
May 6
28
May 11
22
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 23 posts
Raf 41 posts
LG 41 posts
pjroberge 60 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2004
35 posts
May 4 2004
32 posts
May 6 2004
28 posts
May 11 2004
22 posts
LG
It’s obvious that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure.
I’ll address some of the points in the answer and counterclaim.
Answer
1. Denies that the complaint is what it is. The “deprive Roberge of his constitutional rights of free speech” bit is ludicrous.
2. Denies the Court’s jurisdiction, citing ignorance as a reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if you, as a U.S. District Court, have jurisdiction over this action, so I say you don’t.” The statements about the cybersquatting claim demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of “original jurisdiction.”
4. Denies that the venue is proper, citing ignorance as the reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if Vermont is the proper place to try this case, so I say that it is not.”
Affirmative Defenses
1. “TWI has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” That’s ludicrous! TWI stated several such claims. Whether or not they can prove them is a different matter.
Counterclaim
Count 1 is trivial.
Counts 2 and 3 are ludicrous.
Count IV
Grounds for Cancellation of trademarks THE WAY and THE WAY INTERNATIONAL
First of all, this is not an issue for the Court to decide in this case. If Roberge believes that there are grounds to cancel a mark or marks, he should follow procedures established by law, pay the prescribed fee, and file a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
“Ground” 1: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1064(5)(a), which applies to certification marks, not trademarks or service marks.
“Ground” 2: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1120 and 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1), neither of which has to do with canceling registration of a mark.
“Ground” 3: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1152(a) & (e), which have to do with registration, not cancellation of registration, of marks. Beyond that, points 44 and 45 are ludicrous, and 46-48 are irrelevant, even if true.
Damages sought: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which is applicable only if TWI prevails.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I posted a bit about the answer and counterclaim, but it's being held for moderation, due to one or more trigger words.
Regarding this: "And yes, I hope to have many things to talk about in front of the jury, who will be comprised of everyday folk who will be judging TWI by the way their attorney acts and the actual issues."
Those issues don't include TWI's beliefs, teachings, cemetary policy, unrelated court cases, etc. Most of what you hope to say to the jury, they will never hear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
dmiller:
Your point is well taken. My point was that they did not have to say that VPW had a doctorate for him to have a ministry. They knew it was phony and did it anyway. This proves their intent to deceive.
And TWI continued to say Dr even when the discussion came up about his "doctorate". They could have rectified an honest mistake and stopped promoting him as Dr. unless they intended the deception to continue...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Regarding my bringing up other lawsuits etc.
In proving my case against TWI and their having malicious motives towards me.
I am using examples of TWI's behavior along these same lines with others to prove a pattern of willfull corporate misconduct as TWI's policy, and not an isolated one in my case.
It is TWI's long established pattern, and should be allowed as it is relevant to the issues of my case .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Got it.
But I'll still repeat --
"Shoot low, they are riding Shetlands"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Why does this remind of a court case a couple I know went through? The ex-husband had one great case built showing years of lies and deception, a very reputable and over paid lawyer.
When they appeared in court and his legal representation started to show all they had against the couple, well; dang if the judge just didn’t say this case is not about the couples history or credibility! Now if you have no legitimate arguments why this court shouldn’t find in favor of the plaintiffs, then sit down and shut-up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
TWI filed their lawsuit about 3 weeks after the domain name was disabled, and proof of this can be seen by typing in: www.thewayinternational.com
TWI notified the domain name registrar weeks becore serving me and the registrar locked the domain name so no changes could be made.
The domain name was already disabled when they locked it....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WaywardWayfer
Are Jehovah's Witnesses considered a "Christian" organization? How about the Mormons?
If I buy a "Rev" title or a PHd on the Internet, regardless of how much work I did to get the title, am I entitled to call myself a Rev or a Dr.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Whether you may have done the work for a degree is not the problem. The problem is did you do the work to the satisfaction of an accredited school whose job is to certify that students have done the required course study to the satisfaction of established standards?
By the way, you can go to an accredited college and have yourself tested for self study/life experience and if you pass, you can get real college credit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Pat, it's been said that Victor Paul's doctorate was unaccredited, but was "experimental" at that time. He did receive a diploma from them, from a ceremony, but it's still unrecognized by the establishment. I don't know if you can do this, but could you possibly find out how many diploma's were given out by Pike's Peak, and what are the disposition of the folks who got diploma's from them? I'd like to know if you could get someone who actually got a diploma from there, who might agree with your assessment? Don't know if that's possible after all this time but it might be worth checking out...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I see that my post that was held for moderation because of a “trigger word” has still not shown up. I’ll post essentially the same thing again, with the trigger word (a surname beginning with “R”) removed.
It’s obvious to me that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure. It will be even more obvious to lawyers, including the judge.
I’ll address a few points in the answer and counterclaim.
Answer
1. Denies that the complaint is what it is. The bit about depriving constitutional rights of free speech is ludicrous.
2. Denies the Court’s jurisdiction, citing ignorance as a reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if you, as a U.S. District Court, have jurisdiction over this action, so I say you don’t.” The statements about the cybersquatting claim demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of “original jurisdiction.”
4. Denies that the venue is proper, citing ignorance as the reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if the Vermont District is the proper place to try this case, so I say that it is not.”
Each of these demonstrates or outright proclaims ignorance or lack of understanding of applicable law, even though it is specifically cited in the corresponding points of the complaint. Beyond that, points 2 and 4 use ignorance as grounds to tell the Court that it does not have jurisdiction and that it is an improper venue. Not a good start.
Affirmative Defenses
1. “TWI has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” That’s ludicrous! TWI stated several such claims. Whether or not they can prove them is a different matter.
Counterclaim
Points 1-15 are irrelevant, except that point 1 strongly suggests a longstanding knowledge of TWI’s marks and point 6, if true, could be applicable to THE WAY mark, but not THE WAY INTERNATIONAL mark.
Count I is trivial. At best, it points out a few errors in the original claim.
Count II is ludicrous. Points 25 and 26 are examples of TWI doing exactly as the law provides. Points 27-30 are irrelevant to the case.
Count III is also ludicrous. Point 32 actually supports TWI’s position.
Count IV
Grounds for Cancellation of trademarks THE WAY and THE WAY INTERNATIONAL
First of all, this is not an issue for the Court to decide in this case. If one believes that there are grounds to cancel registration of a mark or marks, then he should follow procedures established by law. That is, he should pay the prescribed fee and file a petition, stating the grounds relied on, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
“Ground” 1 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1064(5)(a), which applies to certification marks, not trademarks or service marks.
“Ground” 2 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1120 and 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1), neither of which has to do with canceling registration of a mark.
“Ground” 3 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1152(a) & (e), which have to do with registration, not cancellation of registration, of marks. Beyond that, points 44 and 45 are ludicrous, and 46-48 are irrelevant, even if true.
Damages sought: Cites 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which is applicable only if TWI prevails.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oldies --
Great question!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
The idea that TWI committed some sort of misrepresentation of "Christian" beliefs is so vague as to be ridiculous.
Quick! Answer the following! What are the real Christian beliefs?
--Baptism: Sprinkle, dunk, or ignore?
--Saints: Icons or idolatry?
--Clergy: Celibate or just guys in collars/robes/neckties?
You see what I mean. As long as any church even acknowledges Christ in some way, they can't be said to have misrepresented a "Christian" belief, even if they think he's a blue-furred Venusian who secretly plays goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yes!!
:)--> 
:)--> 
:)--> 
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Am making popcorn, and selling ring-side tickets for this one!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Long Gone said:
It’s obvious to me that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure. It will be even more obvious to lawyers, including the judge.
I’ll address a few points in the answer and counterclaim.
>>
Are you a lawyer ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Raf:
I understand where you are coming from, but can you take this to a more private forum? Like a private post to Roberge and discuss all that? It seems to me that PJ is trying to tell us we can fight back and shows us a little how to do that. I don't think TWI needs these ideas coming from GS. I don't think that was the idea here.
If I read it right, PJ, while saying most Christian organizations support the Trinity and the Way pushes themselves off as a Christian organization, they do so deceptively, as opposed to The Path of Christ Ministry which states the fact first in its pages.
The difference is deception in the matter of the Trinity, not just the opposition to the Trinity.
Could all that have opposing opinions please post privately to PJ? Some may be worthwhile to him, but for obvious reasons, let's help him out here. TWI does have this coming. It is nothing more than a bully organization that threatens people and takes their money. Bottom line, the ethics practiced by TWI are non-Christian by biblical standard.
I guess some of you are going to chew my butt out. But that's how I feel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I haven't said anything since page one.
But if I choose to say something on a public message board, I reserve the right to do so.
If you disagree with me on this tactic, why don't you do so privately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Eagle,
What, trying to deceive TWI by giving the *appearance* of unity here?????
Majority of all the counter claims and counter suit fall under the heading of opinions
IS TWI a Christian outfit? Only by crossing the lines of freedom of worship and separation of church and state, plus setting a mandate by making a legal definition of Christian and/or Christian group would any judge ever rule on this.
VPW’s degree, they can produce documentation he did the work. To say that Pikes Peak was a paper mill is an opinion. Granted that it is an opinion that may be based on facts. Problem with this is that the court would have to declare all degrees null and void from that institution to find in favor of this.
Corps Chalet was used for a short period of time for the purpose it was built. TWI owned it and had every legal right to change the use because of the need at that time. Moral and ethical? Nope, but if they used it for one night to allow some visiting WC no one can prove they built it with the intent to be LCM’s family home.
But then this case is about using their name to direct traffic to a site against them. There may be 40 some places using variations of their *mark* in northern Ohio, but only one web site that used that name to get the *truth* out. But a majority of that *truth* is all based in opinions also.
So, Eagle; you asking the posters here to act like them?????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Long Gone,
Look forward to your equally thorough analysis of TWI's complaint. It should be interesting since as you said in a previous thread that you despise them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
And yes, anyone with a degree from Pikes Peak or other similar unacredited institutions would be ruled as invalid.
Anyone who has used a diploma mill degree on their resume for a government position and got caught know this, because they would be reading GS from prison.
A bogus claim that has been made many times by our critics but never done so with specifics that can be verified... OH Really? Is that why for most of them I submitted hard evidence called exhibits to the judge? Edited by pjrobergeLink to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Eagle,
Thanks for your level headed post.
Actually, that is what some posters have zoned in on, versus what was actually said. I alleged under condition #3 to cancel their trademarks that TWI disparaged the christian religion by their actions and corporate policies. The trinity item is but one of the examples, not THE example.How many times did TWI in their publications, SNS tapes and meetings run down the religion that they say they are a supposed part of? Their view of the trinity is not the central issue, just a part of it.
I allege that TWI not only disparages the christian religion, but claimed ownership of christianity by registering The Way trademark knowing that it represented many groups, books etc, and it was not theirs to own or register, as TWI does not own Christ.Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadie
Eagle, I totally agree with your post. I support PJ and too believe that private topics are a good idea.
GS is here to help one another get through bad times as well as being happy for those who are having good times.
Their are just some things that should be said privately instead of appearing to be an argument for good cause in helping TWI.
You Go Pat!!! TWI has screwed and bullied people too long.
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.