I'm in favor of anyone who has a case that would stand up enough to make it into the courtroon to take it there.
My previous comments point to that in the sense that if there is anything TWi is doing to people that is legally actionable, people should take legal action against them.
For example, were I "in" now and I wanted to get "out," my knowledge of what they've done to others would be sufficient for me to call the police, the first moment I saw a TC show up at my door after the first time I didn't show up for twig.
I'm thinking it is a well known fact amongst innies, the things they have done or might do to keep you 'in.' They have NO right to even say ANYTHING to ANYONE in ANY way, shape or form if a person wants to leave. If a person doesn't want to play Twiglet any more that only thing they have the right to say is, "Goodbye, our door is always open to you."
IF, they actually want you to remain a part of their fellowship, that is.
I agree- provided you have the resources to do so. I know of a non-twi related case, where it was almost IMPOSSIBLE for said individual to even get a restraining order to stick against said party. And it was UGLY. The personal stuff they had to spill in court just to get the order to stick was, well, I have the highest opinion for this person..
I can see where the A***ns would say "enough is enough"..
... revoking all the churches protections, and letting them be fair game ...
Funny you should say that Mr. Hamma. When the IRS was coming after TWI to revoke the tax exempt status back in th e late 1980's I stood up at a staff meeting durng the part of the meeting where they took questions/comments from the staff and said,
"Why should we really care about this? If I believe God's promise to meet my individual needs, won't he meet the ministry's needs too? They can have the tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned."
Ah, now the light comes.. no wonder they desperately wanted the precious tax exempt status.
Wouldn't be a "church" anymore, would it? Or at least it would remain one BIG chink in the armor. I bet all the bones in the closets started rattling..
Perhaps no longer could they "dismiss" people for religious differences. Maybe they'd actually have to pay the staff decent wages for a change.
Well, at least their lawyers got something out of it. Probably find a lot better use for close to a million bucks.. and I heard that's about what it cost them.
The lawyers are gonna milk that bunch of numbnuts all the way to their graves..
At least they got rid of Loy. Don't think that helped much, they just have to play sneakier.
But it did make the decision to leave easier for a lot of folk- at least some good is coming out of it.
Funny you should say that Mr. Hamma. When the IRS was coming after TWI to revoke the tax exempt status back in th e late 1980's I stood up at a staff meeting durng the part of the meeting where they took questions/comments from the staff and said,
"Why should we really care about this? If I believe God's promise to meet my individual needs, won't he meet the ministry's needs too? They can have the tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned."
From Merriam Webster's Tenth Collegiate Dictionary, an allegation is:
1) the act of alleging;
2) a positive assertion, specif: a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove;
3) an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable.
In short, an allegation is not proof. That's why we go to court, to prove allegations.
And so when you say that Ms. A11en was raped, you are believing their allegation, which is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court.
Oldiesman,
First of all, the definition you listed that has any RELEVANCE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM
(a dictionary provides ALL definitions, not just the ones relevant to your needs)
is Definition 2-what is undertaken to be proven.
Since you yourself didn't read the sealed documents, you feel you're entitled to find it
logical that their allegation may have been "without merit", that is,
that a full jury would have likely found it to lack sufficient support to be believed
based on the preponderance of the evidence.
That's a GROSS oversimplification based on an insufficient understanding of the legal
system-and furthermore, an insufficient understanding of what IS in the Public Record.
Everything in this newspaper is in the public record. If it wasn't, and they printed it
anyway, they'd be sued out of existence.
(If a newspaper broke into your house, and wrote an expose of all the scandalous things
hidden in the bottom of your hall closet, it would be factually true but you could sue
them and make a fortune. They invaded your privacy AND broke the law. You could then
consider RETIRING and living off the lawsuit.)
So, what's in a newspaper is considered public knowledge-available to the public if the
public had the information resources as that newspaper.
Who is qualified to be considered a "legal expert"?
Well,
a PROFESSIONAL in the legal field, who spent years receiving an education in that field,
can be considered one.
A lawyer has a Doctorate in his field (Juris Doctor). That means he completed his
Doctorate degree in an ACCREDITED insitution.
After several years of experience, a lawyer is eligible to be an ARBITRATOR of the
Civil Court. If there's demand, and his record is impeccable, he is eligible instead
(AFTER THE SEVERAL YEARS AS A LAWYER) to be made a Judge.
So, if a Judge has just become a judge 5 minutes ago,
he has nearly a decade of education in Law,
and several years of practice in Law.
Usually, they have experience as a Judge also.
I submit that any reasonable person would consider a judge in the US to be a
"legal expert".
Neither you nor I are "legal experts".
Did a "legal expert" get to review the complaint, the allegation and the evidence?
Yes-by defintion.
Judge Schmitt reviewed the case.
At the time, his JOB was to determine the following:
A) Which points of the complaint are outside the jurisdiction of the court?
(Those would be thrown out.)
B) Which points of the complaint lack merit?
(THOSE would be thrown out.)
C) Which points of the complaint are supported by evidence and have merit?
(Those would proceed.)
It was NOT his job to make a summary judgement at the time and close the case,
unless ALL items of the complaint were thrown out.
(If WordWolf sued Oldiesman on 50 counts of being a dumbass, all 50 counts would
be thrown out, period. It is outside the jurisdiction of the court to penalize someone
for being a dumbass. US citizens have the freedom to be dumbasses. Therefore,
the complaint in its entirety would be thrown out.)
If a suit completely lacks merit, BTW,
a judge can have the complainant FINED for wasting the court's time.
(This happens from time to time.)
"Scmitt ruled a jury should decide the following allegations: that The Way breached its contract with them by creating impossible working conditions, including requiring Mrs A11en to submit to sexual assault as a condition of employment; that she was sexually victimized by Martindale and others; that the alleged assault against her was the result of a conspiracy; and the officials of The Way engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity."
" 'The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege', Schmitt ruled. ' Similarly, a religious organization can be held liable for failing to protect its members from the sexual assaults of its employees.' The question of whether the encounters between Mrs A11en and Martindale were consensual should be decided by a jury, the judge ruled."
"Evidence exists that Rivenbark and another woman played a role in events leading to the encounters between Allen and Martindale, which a jury would have to use to decide whether officials engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity against the A11ens, Scmitt ruled."
=======
In plain English, a legal expert, having reviewed the complaints and preliminary
evidence, ruled that the complaint not only was "supportable",
but that it was sufficient to warrant a trial in court.
Mind you,
TWI did not file a COUNTERSUIT.
They could easily have done so if the complaints were "frivilous".
So, TWI's lawyers thought this lawsuit was "supportable".
Judge Schmitt thought this lawsuit was "supportable".
They had access to the evidence.
("It's called DISCLOSURE." -My Cousin Vinny.)
They also had education and experience.
THEY had access to the evidence, and thought the claims were "supportable."
Oldiesman, who lacks legal training, legal experience AND access to the evidence,
has declared that
"it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court."
=============
So, I ask those of you who have some hope of viewing this subject with a degree
of fairness,
WHOSE interpretation of this account is more valid:
Oldiesman's "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court"
or
WordWolf's "the legal EXPERTS who examined the evidence thought their case had merit,
... revoking all the churches protections, and letting them be fair game ...
Funny you should say that Mr. Hamma. When the IRS was coming after TWI to revoke the tax exempt status back in th e late 1980's I stood up at a staff meeting durng the part of the meeting where they took questions/comments from the staff and said,
"Why should we really care about this? If I believe God's promise to meet my individual needs, won't he meet the ministry's needs too? They can have the tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned."
It wasn't too long after that thay they fired me.
That's funny-UNOFFICIALLY, they disliked that and canned you.
OFFICIALLY, LCM went out and said that he was thrilled that, among the believers,
"the overwhelming reaction is 'So What?' "
So, he stole your lines and claimed them for his own.
OM, the RC in my area said regarding BOTH RAPE lawsuits that the TWIts settled "because they were guilty and KNEW they would LOSE THEIR AS$E$ if it ever went to trial"
That's all I'm going to say on this subject since it's already been beaten to death with you.
REGARDING TWIts threats about leaving and the horrible consequences someone would face.... These excerpts from the e-mail Moneyhands sent to me about debt contain the same subtle threats, only, I think they aren't being as subtle anymore. They may be smiling, but I think they are more bold in their proclamations that if you are born again then you are absolutely obligated to stay with "the ministry that taught you the word"
quote:
The Bible clearly says that the borrower is slave to the lender and that is something that every believer must deal with when/if he enters into a debt. Regardless of what decision you make regarding a mortgage, it is clear that you are going to be an informed, confident consumer and that you will be able to count the entire cost, both spiritually and financially.
If that isn't a threat about what "costs" I'm going to have to pay for doing something that TWI teaches is wrong then I don't know what is.
quote:
Though having a home with a mortgage seems to be preferable to some of our disciples, many desire MORE to be in the center of the will of God and are willing to await the conclusive results of the study before entering into a mortgage.
Again, what does TWI teach about those who AREN'T in the center of the will of God? That they are not protected and they open themselves and their families up to all kinds of destruction! (BTW, the MORE in all caps is Bob's doing, not mine. The bold and italics are mine, though)
quote:
Now they are in a position of strength and they, of course, don't understand why anyone would pay the "going cost" for a home over a 30-year period....
Same tactic used about people who STAY and how "blessed" they are vs people who have left. However, they never talk to people who have left so they don't know that they are so much more "blessed" than they ever dreamed possible while in TWI.
They make these veiled threats and they work because they have taught already about how awful things happen to people who are "outside of God's will" so when they tell you that if you go against what they teach then you are "outside of God's will" it's threats by association. They can threaten without coming right out and doing so.
Like Chas said so eloquently (btw, check your e-mail) the cost of staying has to become higher than the cost of leaving. In my mind, I had already done everything I could to save my husband and my marriage but the costs on my health - mentally, physically, emotionally, etc.... and the toll on my family and friendships became too much to bear and I HAD to do something about it. Since leaving I am so much healthier and sleep so much better and have such a better life! I wish I had left sooner!
I agree- provided you have the resources to do so. I know of a non-twi related case, where it was almost IMPOSSIBLE for said individual to even get a restraining order to stick against said party. And it was UGLY. The personal stuff they had to spill in court just to get the order to stick was, well, I have the highest opinion for this person..
I can see where the A***ns would say "enough is enough"..
Noone who was raped will tell you about it here in this forum. At least I would hope they wouldn't. They should not relive this in an open forum for your benefit.
If you really want to investigate it and find out for yourself. You are going to have to search it out. And you better have a heart of gold my friend, cause you don't go messing around with people when they say something like this happened to them. You better just back off and give 'em some room.
In general, rape victims are not believed. Because the one's that they confess to have hard hearts and will not listen. Or they just don't want to believe it because of their own experience with the ones who did the wrong.
And I wouldn't want anyone to relive it in open court if they could avoid it.
Oldiesman, who lacks legal training, legal experience AND access to the evidence,
has declared that "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court."
This is true. The judge himself said that a jury should decide the merits of the allegations. Let me repeat: the judge said a jury should decide the allegations. I feel comfortable that the judge is correct, that after hearing all the facts under oath, the jury decides. That's the proper way to judge a case.
And so I think it's just rumor, hearsay and innuendo to you and me. Unless you have firsthand knowledge of what happened, you really don't know what happened. Neither do I. So I refrain from being supportive of the allegations, especially from folks who might have a pre-determined mindset and unbalanced perspective against everything that is twi.
As Johniam mentioned earlier, I am not unsympathetic to those who have been abused. It has happened in twi. I just wish in this case there would have been a trial so that all the facts would've been exposed for a jury, and subsequently us, to make an informed decision based on all the exposed facts. That didn't happen.
Also the thought crossed my mind that a trial might have brought down Riverbark too. I guess that wasn't in the plans. Oh well.
It was started specifically for us to HELP a few innie lurkers that I know. -->
Your comments have been VERY HELPFUL. If you want to start a new thread to rehash the same arguments about rape and the lawsuits over and over again with OM, then please feel free to do so, but I'd really like to stay on the topic of the blackmail and threats that TWI uses to keep people involved because they are STILL doing this and they are turning up the heat on it to keep people from leaving.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
OM, the RC in my area said regarding BOTH RAPE lawsuits that the TWIts settled "because they were guilty and KNEW they would LOSE THEIR AS$E$ if it ever went to trial"
That's all I'm going to say on this subject since it's already been beaten to death with you.
REGARDING TWIts threats about leaving and the horrible consequences someone would face.... These excerpts from the e-mail Moneyhands sent to me about debt contain the same subtle threats, only, I think they aren't being as subtle anymore. They may be smiling, but I think they are more bold in their proclamations that if you are born again then you are absolutely obligated to stay with "the ministry that taught you the word"
quote:
The Bible clearly says that the borrower is slave to the lender and that is something that every believer must deal with when/if he enters into a debt. Regardless of what decision you make regarding a mortgage, it is clear that you are going to be an informed, confident consumer and that you will be able to count the entire cost, both spiritually and financially.
If that isn't a threat about what "costs" I'm going to have to pay for doing something that TWI teaches is wrong then I don't know what is.
quote:
Though having a home with a mortgage seems to be preferable to some of our disciples, many desire MORE to be in the center of the will of God and are willing to await the conclusive results of the study before entering into a mortgage.
Again, what does TWI teach about those who AREN'T in the center of the will of God? That they are not protected and they open themselves and their families up to all kinds of destruction! (BTW, the MORE in all caps is Bob's doing, not mine. The bold and italics are mine, though)
quote:
Now they are in a position of strength and they, of course, don't understand why anyone would pay the "going cost" for a home over a 30-year period....
Same tactic used about people who STAY and how "blessed" they are vs people who have left. However, they never talk to people who have left so they don't know that they are so much more "blessed" than they ever dreamed possible while in TWI.
They make these veiled threats and they work because they have taught already about how awful things happen to people who are "outside of God's will" so when they tell you that if you go against what they teach then you are "outside of God's will" it's threats by association. They can threaten without coming right out and doing so.
Like Chas said so eloquently (btw, check your e-mail) the cost of staying has to become higher than the cost of leaving. In my mind, I had already done everything I could to save my husband and my marriage but the costs on my health - mentally, physically, emotionally, etc.... and the toll on my family and friendships became too much to bear and I HAD to do something about it. Since leaving I am so much healthier and sleep so much better and have such a better life! I wish I had left sooner!
Same tactic used about people who STAY and how "blessed" they are vs people who have left. However, they never talk to people who have left so they don't know that they are so much more "blessed" than they ever dreamed possible while in TWI.
Belle, that makes sense. They wouldn't know how happy you are since they don't talk to you. But, not everyone who has left is much more blessed than they ever dreamed possible in twi. That's an assumption on your part.
And similar to THEM not speaking to YOU, you and I don't know how happy or unhappy someone in twi is, unless you or I talk directly to THEM.
I will accept your statements that you're much happier now than you ever dreamed you were in twi, and am thankful for that. I don't think twi was ever for you. However, I will not accept that folks in twi I never met are unhappy, miserable, or share your views. Maybe they do, maybe they don't; I have no way of knowing unless I talk to them.
The Bible clearly says that the borrower is slave to the lender and that is something that every believer must deal with when/if he enters into a debt. Regardless of what decision you make regarding a mortgage, it is clear that you are going to be an informed, confident consumer and that you will be able to count the entire cost, both spiritually and financially.
quote:
Though having a home with a mortgage seems to be preferable to some of our disciples, many desire MORE to be in the center of the will of God and are willing to await the conclusive results of the study before entering into a mortgage.
quote:
Now they are in a position of strength and they, of course, don't understand why anyone would pay the "going cost" for a home over a 30-year period....
]
twi sure is missing out on a lot of ABS by not allowing the buying and selling of homes. I'll keep my own money thanks. I have seen what EMPORIA, Rome City and the aircraft hanger went for. If that is good stewardship of Gods money (ABS). If the innies want to listen to their expertise on the value of money go ahead. No wonder twi is in bad shape.
and surely. Almost without being detected...like a virus.
Drawing me deeper and deeper into the spiders web.
I had questions in the back of my mind but
wouldn't bring them up. There was always something to be at.
Fellowship, sts, meetings.
Fear of being confronted was used all the time.
You that are in can test to see if you are
being controlled. Try leaving.
by belle...
"blackmail and threats that TWI uses to keep people involved because they are STILL doing this and they are turning up the heat on it to keep people from leaving"
No joke. Try just going on VACATION somewhere. Anywhere not wayworld related- or even to way world BY YOURSELF. Vacations were frowned upon even before I left in the mid nineties. Those poor devils STILL have to travel in numbers, last I heard- no privacy, no personal life.
I think it's despicable how they USE your family members to try to keep you "in line". Disgusting. People that can't leave because if they do, they won't see their wife or husband, again. Or the kids, or the relatives, or the supposed friends.
The day I would hear Rivenbark get up on a Sunday night service and announce that "people that are not with us on the word are OK, we love them just as much anyway. It is OK if your spouse or relatives dare to have a different opinion" might get me to soften up a little..
But honestly, at this stage in the game it'd probably just be damage control.
Oldiesman, who lacks legal training, legal experience AND access to the evidence,
has declared that "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court."
This is true. The judge himself said that a jury should decide the merits of the allegations. Let me repeat: the judge said a jury should decide the allegations. I feel comfortable that the judge is correct, that after hearing all the facts under oath, the jury decides. That's the proper way to judge a case.
It would have been nice if you had read my ENTIRE post, instead of just scrolling until
you saw your name.
Although I'm not a legal expert either, I'm aware that a GOOD judge does not attempt to
overstep his mandate, nor to deviate from the REQUIRED procedure.
If you had READ MY POST, you would have seen that I pointed out WHY he said that instead
of just making a pronouncement.
quote:
At the time, his JOB was to determine the following:
A) Which points of the complaint are outside the jurisdiction of the court?
B) Which points of the complaint lack merit?
C) Which points of the complaint are supported by evidence and have merit?
It was NOT his job to make a summary judgement at the time and close the case,
unless ALL items of the complaint were thrown out.
If a suit completely lacks merit, BTW, a judge can have the complainant FINED for wasting
the court's time.
At that step, the judge was to strip away whatever was outside the court's jurisdiction,
and what was without merit, and issue a document recommending the remaining items
proceed to trial.
If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case lacks merit completely, it gets trashed
at this step.
If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case is "open and shut", then he does NOT
just render a judgement at this step. He does exactly what the judge did here-
he recommends it proceed to trial.
Why doesn't he just say "the defendant is guilty" like Oldiesman seems to think is
supposed to happen at this point?
Well,
the defendant is allowed, under the Bill of Rights (Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States of America) to a trial by JURY, even if the defendant's case is
open-and-shut.
So, the judge's response is that the prosecution's case had substance. At this stage,
it would have been improper for the judge to influence the jury and make pronouncements
as to guilt or innocence. (If he had, he would have given the defendant grounds for an
appeal, just like that.)
As I said earlier (and explained, both the judge and twi's lawyers took responses
indicative of a belief that the plaintiff had a case with substance.
THEIR professional opinions, therefore, were that such a response was the most
appropriate response to the situation. Therefore, experts with all the facts took that
position.
Are you questioning THEIR appraisal of the situation?
quote:
And so I think it's just rumor, hearsay and innuendo to you and me. Unless you have firsthand knowledge of what happened, you really don't know what happened. Neither do I. So I refrain from being supportive of the allegations, especially from folks who might have a pre-determined mindset and unbalanced perspective against everything that is twi.
Actually, if I believed twi's case, I'd STILL say "the judge responded that the case
has merit, which is all he COULD do at that point. The lawyers responded in a way that
indicated THEY believed the case had merit and they could lose.
Here's something that requires no degree to understand....
If a lawyer thinks the other side has NO chance to win, he will proceed to trial as
swiftly as possible.
If a lawyer thinks HIS side has NO chance to win, he will do everything he can to do
prevent his case going to trial. He will find something to do to change the conditions.
He will convince his client to change his plea, he will try to change the venue if he
thinks the locality is biased, or, most commonly, he will OFFER TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT.
This will allow his client to lose a FRACTION of the money and a FRACTION of the time.
In this case, the DEFENDANTS OFFERED TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT.
How difficult does it have to be to see this alone suggests they're aware they can't
win and are at-fault?
Well, for folks who "have a predetermined mindset and unbalanced perspective",
this might be difficult.
quote:
As Johniam mentioned earlier, I am not unsympathetic to those who have been abused.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Oh, Oldiesman,
you kill me sometimes!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
quote:
It has happened in twi.
Gonna act later like it never happened? It's been your usual gambit to date....
quote:
I just wish in this case there would have been a trial so that all the facts would've been exposed for a jury, and subsequently us, to make an informed decision based on all the exposed facts. That didn't happen.
Frankly,
based on your "ability" to "interpret" what IS public knowledge in this case,
I'm thankful the parties are spared your curiousity.
I'm fairly certain NOTHING would convince you the plaintiff had a case,
and the only results would be you voyeuristically scrutinizing the personal details
of an injured party,
and "probing" questions like what their favourite sexual positions are.
OM, you're right. I did speak for everyone and I shouldn't have. Just because I am healthier and happier doesn't mean everyone who left is. I realize that there are people who were asked to leave or no longer welcome at TWIt functions who would gladly go back. I stand corrected.
I do, however, believe that TWIts in general would not even consider the fact that someone could be happier outside the walls of TWI. I can just imagine my ex sitting around talking with other wayfers about how miserable I must be and how bad my life must be based on what they saw of me before I left and what they "wish" would happen to me.
Belle, Im trying .. in the meantime, I have put back on a few of my conservative clothes, heh heh.
"I remember so many times lcm teaching that if you left the household that God wouldn't and couldn't protect you anymore (and we all know what THAT entails). You'd go "spiritually dark":"
The interesting thing that happened to me is, I did NOT forget what I learned in TWI. I just found I needed to take out the garbage. No longer am I required to regurgitate it on a bi- or tri-weekly basis.
Going spiritually dark is pretty hard to do when you can't see the ditch to begin with. If anything, I slowly started to spiritually wake up. No more justifying or ignoring evil and hateful behavior, in myself or others, thinking "believing" would fix everything. Just throw enough bible verses at it, and it'll go away..
No longer do I find a devil waiting to jump me behind every rock and motive- my God is a lot bigger than that.
When God does show me to get on something, I don't try to analyze it to death either.
Sometimes I am miserable, or lonely, or things don't work out like I think they should- but I can still smile, and not blame myself for every little failure in life.
Cripe- even with the little pains in life, life is still so much better outside of that flea trap.
My words about L****r still stand though, heh heh. Those who could leave that place with a high hand and still stay.. Ptooie. Must really like the position, love to make people miserable.. at least my opinion. I guess they can't leave, but for a different reason.
Those who could leave that place with a high hand and still stay.. Ptooie. Must really like the position, love to make people miserable.. at least my opinion. I guess they can't leave, but for a different reason.
You know? There always seemed to be folks lurking about who gave a distinct impression that they would just as soon eat you and take your staff position as look at you.
It got worse as the years went by and even worse after POP. I remember it cause it actually creeped me WAAAY out a few times. "People I didn't even really know would say things like, "SO. You gonna stay on staff ANOTHER year?" (insert twilight zone music here)
There were others, Like Rosalie Rivenbark that you just knew were hangin around more to get that big (in her case President) spot than anything else.
It wasn't so bad until TWI got 'big' and corporate. By the time we got around to the double digit Corps numbers all of the 'major' leadership field positions and the staff spots were filled.
A few years after I got canned & ran into some innies, it was not all surprising who stayed. It seemed like most of them were people who either wanted a position or wanted a "bigger one" than they had.
Don W., after taking over as Vice Pres. wanted to maintain some sense of continuity of TWI staff, especially the more widely influential positions because it took about a third of the year for new people to come up to speed. People stopped moving from spot to spot. Those who felt they were a shoe-in to be the next "whatever" got pretty steamed. Most of us in the 11th had already been 'successful' TC's on the field, then LCM told us we were going through all that training to do what we were already doing?
Sheesh!
They actually told us 11th WC that NONE of us would be getting a position above an area coordinator when we graduated; and only a few of those would be 'open.' That was when they tried to push it on people that the 'highest' leadership position in the ministry was a TC anyways. People started getting really hacked off because being a Corps grad became percieved as the fast track to the 'big-time' in TWI.
Some folks won't leave now because they know they could never get the same 'title' in another similarly sized company as TWi. As if Rosalie could qualify as as C.E.O. in a $20 mil/yr organization. Harve Platig, an actual corporate vice president?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
13
14
16
Popular Days
Apr 13
56
Apr 14
34
Apr 15
31
Apr 12
13
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 18 posts
ChasUFarley 13 posts
HCW 14 posts
Ham 16 posts
Popular Days
Apr 13 2005
56 posts
Apr 14 2005
34 posts
Apr 15 2005
31 posts
Apr 12 2005
13 posts
Ham
Ptooie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I'm in favor of anyone who has a case that would stand up enough to make it into the courtroon to take it there.
My previous comments point to that in the sense that if there is anything TWi is doing to people that is legally actionable, people should take legal action against them.
For example, were I "in" now and I wanted to get "out," my knowledge of what they've done to others would be sufficient for me to call the police, the first moment I saw a TC show up at my door after the first time I didn't show up for twig.
I'm thinking it is a well known fact amongst innies, the things they have done or might do to keep you 'in.' They have NO right to even say ANYTHING to ANYONE in ANY way, shape or form if a person wants to leave. If a person doesn't want to play Twiglet any more that only thing they have the right to say is, "Goodbye, our door is always open to you."
IF, they actually want you to remain a part of their fellowship, that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I agree- provided you have the resources to do so. I know of a non-twi related case, where it was almost IMPOSSIBLE for said individual to even get a restraining order to stick against said party. And it was UGLY. The personal stuff they had to spill in court just to get the order to stick was, well, I have the highest opinion for this person..
I can see where the A***ns would say "enough is enough"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Funny you should say that Mr. Hamma. When the IRS was coming after TWI to revoke the tax exempt status back in th e late 1980's I stood up at a staff meeting durng the part of the meeting where they took questions/comments from the staff and said,
"Why should we really care about this? If I believe God's promise to meet my individual needs, won't he meet the ministry's needs too? They can have the tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned."
It wasn't too long after that thay they fired me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Ah, now the light comes.. no wonder they desperately wanted the precious tax exempt status.
Wouldn't be a "church" anymore, would it? Or at least it would remain one BIG chink in the armor. I bet all the bones in the closets started rattling..
Perhaps no longer could they "dismiss" people for religious differences. Maybe they'd actually have to pay the staff decent wages for a change.
Well, at least their lawyers got something out of it. Probably find a lot better use for close to a million bucks.. and I heard that's about what it cost them.
The lawyers are gonna milk that bunch of numbnuts all the way to their graves..
At least they got rid of Loy. Don't think that helped much, they just have to play sneakier.
But it did make the decision to leave easier for a lot of folk- at least some good is coming out of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oldiesman,
First of all, the definition you listed that has any RELEVANCE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM
(a dictionary provides ALL definitions, not just the ones relevant to your needs)
is Definition 2-what is undertaken to be proven.
Since you yourself didn't read the sealed documents, you feel you're entitled to find it
logical that their allegation may have been "without merit", that is,
that a full jury would have likely found it to lack sufficient support to be believed
based on the preponderance of the evidence.
That's a GROSS oversimplification based on an insufficient understanding of the legal
system-and furthermore, an insufficient understanding of what IS in the Public Record.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/laws...ly-11072000.htm
Everything in this newspaper is in the public record. If it wasn't, and they printed it
anyway, they'd be sued out of existence.
(If a newspaper broke into your house, and wrote an expose of all the scandalous things
hidden in the bottom of your hall closet, it would be factually true but you could sue
them and make a fortune. They invaded your privacy AND broke the law. You could then
consider RETIRING and living off the lawsuit.)
So, what's in a newspaper is considered public knowledge-available to the public if the
public had the information resources as that newspaper.
Who is qualified to be considered a "legal expert"?
Well,
a PROFESSIONAL in the legal field, who spent years receiving an education in that field,
can be considered one.
A lawyer has a Doctorate in his field (Juris Doctor). That means he completed his
Doctorate degree in an ACCREDITED insitution.
After several years of experience, a lawyer is eligible to be an ARBITRATOR of the
Civil Court. If there's demand, and his record is impeccable, he is eligible instead
(AFTER THE SEVERAL YEARS AS A LAWYER) to be made a Judge.
So, if a Judge has just become a judge 5 minutes ago,
he has nearly a decade of education in Law,
and several years of practice in Law.
Usually, they have experience as a Judge also.
I submit that any reasonable person would consider a judge in the US to be a
"legal expert".
Neither you nor I are "legal experts".
Did a "legal expert" get to review the complaint, the allegation and the evidence?
Yes-by defintion.
Judge Schmitt reviewed the case.
At the time, his JOB was to determine the following:
A) Which points of the complaint are outside the jurisdiction of the court?
(Those would be thrown out.)
B) Which points of the complaint lack merit?
(THOSE would be thrown out.)
C) Which points of the complaint are supported by evidence and have merit?
(Those would proceed.)
It was NOT his job to make a summary judgement at the time and close the case,
unless ALL items of the complaint were thrown out.
(If WordWolf sued Oldiesman on 50 counts of being a dumbass, all 50 counts would
be thrown out, period. It is outside the jurisdiction of the court to penalize someone
for being a dumbass. US citizens have the freedom to be dumbasses. Therefore,
the complaint in its entirety would be thrown out.)
If a suit completely lacks merit, BTW,
a judge can have the complainant FINED for wasting the court's time.
(This happens from time to time.)
"Scmitt ruled a jury should decide the following allegations: that The Way breached its contract with them by creating impossible working conditions, including requiring Mrs A11en to submit to sexual assault as a condition of employment; that she was sexually victimized by Martindale and others; that the alleged assault against her was the result of a conspiracy; and the officials of The Way engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity."
" 'The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege', Schmitt ruled. ' Similarly, a religious organization can be held liable for failing to protect its members from the sexual assaults of its employees.' The question of whether the encounters between Mrs A11en and Martindale were consensual should be decided by a jury, the judge ruled."
"Evidence exists that Rivenbark and another woman played a role in events leading to the encounters between Allen and Martindale, which a jury would have to use to decide whether officials engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity against the A11ens, Scmitt ruled."
=======
In plain English, a legal expert, having reviewed the complaints and preliminary
evidence, ruled that the complaint not only was "supportable",
but that it was sufficient to warrant a trial in court.
Mind you,
TWI did not file a COUNTERSUIT.
They could easily have done so if the complaints were "frivilous".
So, TWI's lawyers thought this lawsuit was "supportable".
Judge Schmitt thought this lawsuit was "supportable".
They had access to the evidence.
("It's called DISCLOSURE." -My Cousin Vinny.)
They also had education and experience.
THEY had access to the evidence, and thought the claims were "supportable."
Oldiesman, who lacks legal training, legal experience AND access to the evidence,
has declared that
"it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court."
=============
So, I ask those of you who have some hope of viewing this subject with a degree
of fairness,
WHOSE interpretation of this account is more valid:
Oldiesman's "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court"
or
WordWolf's "the legal EXPERTS who examined the evidence thought their case had merit,
and therefore, its claims were SUPPORTED"?
I ask you, whose?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's funny-UNOFFICIALLY, they disliked that and canned you.
OFFICIALLY, LCM went out and said that he was thrilled that, among the believers,
"the overwhelming reaction is 'So What?' "
So, he stole your lines and claimed them for his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
OM, the RC in my area said regarding BOTH RAPE lawsuits that the TWIts settled "because they were guilty and KNEW they would LOSE THEIR AS$E$ if it ever went to trial"
That's all I'm going to say on this subject since it's already been beaten to death with you.
REGARDING TWIts threats about leaving and the horrible consequences someone would face.... These excerpts from the e-mail Moneyhands sent to me about debt contain the same subtle threats, only, I think they aren't being as subtle anymore. They may be smiling, but I think they are more bold in their proclamations that if you are born again then you are absolutely obligated to stay with "the ministry that taught you the word"
If that isn't a threat about what "costs" I'm going to have to pay for doing something that TWI teaches is wrong then I don't know what is.
Again, what does TWI teach about those who AREN'T in the center of the will of God? That they are not protected and they open themselves and their families up to all kinds of destruction! (BTW, the MORE in all caps is Bob's doing, not mine. The bold and italics are mine, though)
Same tactic used about people who STAY and how "blessed" they are vs people who have left. However, they never talk to people who have left so they don't know that they are so much more "blessed" than they ever dreamed possible while in TWI.
They make these veiled threats and they work because they have taught already about how awful things happen to people who are "outside of God's will" so when they tell you that if you go against what they teach then you are "outside of God's will" it's threats by association. They can threaten without coming right out and doing so.
Like Chas said so eloquently (btw, check your e-mail) the cost of staying has to become higher than the cost of leaving. In my mind, I had already done everything I could to save my husband and my marriage but the costs on my health - mentally, physically, emotionally, etc.... and the toll on my family and friendships became too much to bear and I HAD to do something about it. Since leaving I am so much healthier and sleep so much better and have such a better life! I wish I had left sooner!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This bore repeating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This also bore repeating.
Ok, I'll stop now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy!
But why repeat them for a bore, ww?
(sorry, couldn't resist
:)--> )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And so I think it's just rumor, hearsay and innuendo to you and me. Unless you have firsthand knowledge of what happened, you really don't know what happened. Neither do I. So I refrain from being supportive of the allegations, especially from folks who might have a pre-determined mindset and unbalanced perspective against everything that is twi.
As Johniam mentioned earlier, I am not unsympathetic to those who have been abused. It has happened in twi. I just wish in this case there would have been a trial so that all the facts would've been exposed for a jury, and subsequently us, to make an informed decision based on all the exposed facts. That didn't happen.
Also the thought crossed my mind that a trial might have brought down Riverbark too. I guess that wasn't in the plans. Oh well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Can we PLEASE re-rail this thread??
:o-->
It was started specifically for us to HELP a few innie lurkers that I know.
-->
Your comments have been VERY HELPFUL. If you want to start a new thread to rehash the same arguments about rape and the lawsuits over and over again with OM, then please feel free to do so, but I'd really like to stay on the topic of the blackmail and threats that TWI uses to keep people involved because they are STILL doing this and they are turning up the heat on it to keep people from leaving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And similar to THEM not speaking to YOU, you and I don't know how happy or unhappy someone in twi is, unless you or I talk directly to THEM.
I will accept your statements that you're much happier now than you ever dreamed you were in twi, and am thankful for that. I don't think twi was ever for you. However, I will not accept that folks in twi I never met are unhappy, miserable, or share your views. Maybe they do, maybe they don't; I have no way of knowing unless I talk to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
twi sure is missing out on a lot of ABS by not allowing the buying and selling of homes. I'll keep my own money thanks. I have seen what EMPORIA, Rome City and the aircraft hanger went for. If that is good stewardship of Gods money (ABS). If the innies want to listen to their expertise on the value of money go ahead. No wonder twi is in bad shape.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
You got it dude!
And you are talking to some now!
lol...blessed will in twi...yeah..
I guess there were some times that I was.
But looking back on it, I could see how
the noose was tightening ever so slowly
and surely. Almost without being detected...like a virus.
Drawing me deeper and deeper into the spiders web.
I had questions in the back of my mind but
wouldn't bring them up. There was always something to be at.
Fellowship, sts, meetings.
Fear of being confronted was used all the time.
You that are in can test to see if you are
being controlled. Try leaving.
by belle...
"blackmail and threats that TWI uses to keep people involved because they are STILL doing this and they are turning up the heat on it to keep people from leaving"
See if this happens. Let us know how it goes.
Even just try taking a break for a month or 2.
It was told that I was being tricked and fooled
by the adversary. lol...then my in-laws left not
too long after that...good for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
No joke. Try just going on VACATION somewhere. Anywhere not wayworld related- or even to way world BY YOURSELF. Vacations were frowned upon even before I left in the mid nineties. Those poor devils STILL have to travel in numbers, last I heard- no privacy, no personal life.
I think it's despicable how they USE your family members to try to keep you "in line". Disgusting. People that can't leave because if they do, they won't see their wife or husband, again. Or the kids, or the relatives, or the supposed friends.
The day I would hear Rivenbark get up on a Sunday night service and announce that "people that are not with us on the word are OK, we love them just as much anyway. It is OK if your spouse or relatives dare to have a different opinion" might get me to soften up a little..
But honestly, at this stage in the game it'd probably just be damage control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It would have been nice if you had read my ENTIRE post, instead of just scrolling until
you saw your name.
Although I'm not a legal expert either, I'm aware that a GOOD judge does not attempt to
overstep his mandate, nor to deviate from the REQUIRED procedure.
If you had READ MY POST, you would have seen that I pointed out WHY he said that instead
of just making a pronouncement.
At that step, the judge was to strip away whatever was outside the court's jurisdiction,
and what was without merit, and issue a document recommending the remaining items
proceed to trial.
If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case lacks merit completely, it gets trashed
at this step.
If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case is "open and shut", then he does NOT
just render a judgement at this step. He does exactly what the judge did here-
he recommends it proceed to trial.
Why doesn't he just say "the defendant is guilty" like Oldiesman seems to think is
supposed to happen at this point?
Well,
the defendant is allowed, under the Bill of Rights (Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States of America) to a trial by JURY, even if the defendant's case is
open-and-shut.
So, the judge's response is that the prosecution's case had substance. At this stage,
it would have been improper for the judge to influence the jury and make pronouncements
as to guilt or innocence. (If he had, he would have given the defendant grounds for an
appeal, just like that.)
As I said earlier (and explained, both the judge and twi's lawyers took responses
indicative of a belief that the plaintiff had a case with substance.
THEIR professional opinions, therefore, were that such a response was the most
appropriate response to the situation. Therefore, experts with all the facts took that
position.
Are you questioning THEIR appraisal of the situation?
Actually, if I believed twi's case, I'd STILL say "the judge responded that the case
has merit, which is all he COULD do at that point. The lawyers responded in a way that
indicated THEY believed the case had merit and they could lose.
Here's something that requires no degree to understand....
If a lawyer thinks the other side has NO chance to win, he will proceed to trial as
swiftly as possible.
If a lawyer thinks HIS side has NO chance to win, he will do everything he can to do
prevent his case going to trial. He will find something to do to change the conditions.
He will convince his client to change his plea, he will try to change the venue if he
thinks the locality is biased, or, most commonly, he will OFFER TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT.
This will allow his client to lose a FRACTION of the money and a FRACTION of the time.
In this case, the DEFENDANTS OFFERED TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT.
How difficult does it have to be to see this alone suggests they're aware they can't
win and are at-fault?
Well, for folks who "have a predetermined mindset and unbalanced perspective",
this might be difficult.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Oh, Oldiesman,
you kill me sometimes!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Gonna act later like it never happened? It's been your usual gambit to date....
Frankly,
based on your "ability" to "interpret" what IS public knowledge in this case,
I'm thankful the parties are spared your curiousity.
I'm fairly certain NOTHING would convince you the plaintiff had a case,
and the only results would be you voyeuristically scrutinizing the personal details
of an injured party,
and "probing" questions like what their favourite sexual positions are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Gentlemen, I respectfully ask once again for you to stay on topic on this thread. I have started a new thread for you to banter about the lawsuits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
OM, you're right. I did speak for everyone and I shouldn't have. Just because I am healthier and happier doesn't mean everyone who left is. I realize that there are people who were asked to leave or no longer welcome at TWIt functions who would gladly go back. I stand corrected.
I do, however, believe that TWIts in general would not even consider the fact that someone could be happier outside the walls of TWI. I can just imagine my ex sitting around talking with other wayfers about how miserable I must be and how bad my life must be based on what they saw of me before I left and what they "wish" would happen to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Belle, Im trying .. in the meantime, I have put back on a few of my conservative clothes, heh heh.
"I remember so many times lcm teaching that if you left the household that God wouldn't and couldn't protect you anymore (and we all know what THAT entails). You'd go "spiritually dark":"
The interesting thing that happened to me is, I did NOT forget what I learned in TWI. I just found I needed to take out the garbage. No longer am I required to regurgitate it on a bi- or tri-weekly basis.
Going spiritually dark is pretty hard to do when you can't see the ditch to begin with. If anything, I slowly started to spiritually wake up. No more justifying or ignoring evil and hateful behavior, in myself or others, thinking "believing" would fix everything. Just throw enough bible verses at it, and it'll go away..
No longer do I find a devil waiting to jump me behind every rock and motive- my God is a lot bigger than that.
When God does show me to get on something, I don't try to analyze it to death either.
Sometimes I am miserable, or lonely, or things don't work out like I think they should- but I can still smile, and not blame myself for every little failure in life.
Cripe- even with the little pains in life, life is still so much better outside of that flea trap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
My words about L****r still stand though, heh heh. Those who could leave that place with a high hand and still stay.. Ptooie. Must really like the position, love to make people miserable.. at least my opinion. I guess they can't leave, but for a different reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
You know? There always seemed to be folks lurking about who gave a distinct impression that they would just as soon eat you and take your staff position as look at you.
It got worse as the years went by and even worse after POP. I remember it cause it actually creeped me WAAAY out a few times. "People I didn't even really know would say things like, "SO. You gonna stay on staff ANOTHER year?" (insert twilight zone music here)
There were others, Like Rosalie Rivenbark that you just knew were hangin around more to get that big (in her case President) spot than anything else.
It wasn't so bad until TWI got 'big' and corporate. By the time we got around to the double digit Corps numbers all of the 'major' leadership field positions and the staff spots were filled.
A few years after I got canned & ran into some innies, it was not all surprising who stayed. It seemed like most of them were people who either wanted a position or wanted a "bigger one" than they had.
Don W., after taking over as Vice Pres. wanted to maintain some sense of continuity of TWI staff, especially the more widely influential positions because it took about a third of the year for new people to come up to speed. People stopped moving from spot to spot. Those who felt they were a shoe-in to be the next "whatever" got pretty steamed. Most of us in the 11th had already been 'successful' TC's on the field, then LCM told us we were going through all that training to do what we were already doing?
Sheesh!
They actually told us 11th WC that NONE of us would be getting a position above an area coordinator when we graduated; and only a few of those would be 'open.' That was when they tried to push it on people that the 'highest' leadership position in the ministry was a TC anyways. People started getting really hacked off because being a Corps grad became percieved as the fast track to the 'big-time' in TWI.
Some folks won't leave now because they know they could never get the same 'title' in another similarly sized company as TWi. As if Rosalie could qualify as as C.E.O. in a $20 mil/yr organization. Harve Platig, an actual corporate vice president?
Was LCM hired as CEO of Bally's?
Edited by hcwalker58Link 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.