The activist group Advocates for Awareness of Watchtower Abuses (AAWA) has released a new video to the public that clearly describes the dangers inherent in a Watchtower Society policy that protects pedophiles within their congregations.
This is a subject that can no longer be hidden or covered over by denials, lies or half-truths. It has been proven to be a fact in a court of law. In spite of the overwhelming evidence against them, the Watchtower continues to require elders managing local Kingdom Halls to adhere to their insane policy of the “Two Witness Rule” that provides shelter and opportunity for pedophiles in their midst to go about their nasty business with few or no restrictions.
The “Two Witness Rule” is based on an old Hebrew law that protected Jews from being falsely accused of a crime. The idea is based on the principle that it is easy for one person to make up a lie to take advantage of someone by accusing them of criminal behavior – but more difficult if another witness to an infraction is required.
In modern legal terms that general policy continues to apply to criminal and civil law. You can’t just go into a police station and accuse someone you don’t like of gross crimes and misdemeanors and demand they be arrested. You must have some form of proof (videos, crime scene evidence) or present other witnesses to the event before police will act. Without such evidence you will be shown the door.
I only live about 50 miles south of Portland, I was privileged to attend that showing.
I enjoyed the movie thoroughly and was also able to meet a few of the principles associated with the film.
Scores of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses and their supporters had an opportunity to see the film in its full-screen version in the Pacific Northwest region.
By Stephanie Hammond
If you found out that a man you trusted had molested your child, how would you feel? What would you do?
For most parents their natural reactions would include anger, devastation, pain, and anguish. Many parents say they would need an “act of God” to prevent them from physically castrating the violator. Others would immediately call the police and try to have the man put away in prison for the rest of his natural life. All of these reactions make sense, considering the disgusting, cruel acts often committed against children — children who depend on their parents to protect them and come to their aid in situations too abysmal to comprehend.
On the other hand, what if you were told it was more acceptable not to call the police? Instead, what if you were instructed that you must tell a member of your church clergy first and let him handle it? And what if you actually followed this instruction, and then find out that nothing was done to punish the perpetrator? What if the clergy members told you that there had to be “two witnesses who personally saw the man touch your child” in order for them to act? Would you let the matter go? Could you?
That second scenario might seem outrageous to most people. No one could actually follow through with that ridiculous mandate – could they? Does this really happen? What are the facts?
I am writing this article to share my personal experiences and to disclose to all current and former Jehovah’s Witnesses that the potential for the Watchtower organization to take advantage of their elderly parents clearly exists. I am specifically referring to the handling of family inheritances, last wills and testaments, estates, family trusts, and the disposition of property and cash assets.
In March 2012 a new series of videos will be released on YouTube and various other websites that will provide answers to many of the common questions about the lawsuit known as “Jane Doe vs. The Watchtower.” That court case, heard by a state judge in an Alameda County (California) court room in May and June 2012, was a unique legal battle waged by Candace Conti and her attorney, Rick Simons, against the North Fremont Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their controlling organization, the Watchtower Society of New York, Inc.
This case was important because it was the first time that both sides of a child abuse case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses were heard in open court. All other similar cases were settled out of court and contained non-disclosure agreements that prevented any of the facts from being made public.