Leaderboard

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

drwearword, so so so sorry. i'm glad you're okay now courting devil spirits -- in my time we were entertaining them not sure which is worse -- i guess courting all this stuff is so stupid this is a tough one for me. knowing that frikkin wierwille (you know he wasn't a doctor right? lol) counseled me to get over being sexually abused as a child by men in family -- you know the stinking story -- he was the healer of that particualr possession i guess

Even twi will tell you that Jesus Christ never cast out JUDAS ISCARIOT- the very man who betrayed him with a kiss, and betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver.

excellent job of taking the statement out of context in such a predictable manner, rather than recognize it as an example of why presumption of innocence isn't practical outside of the courtroom. just imagine what twi would be like if they were required to operate under presumption of innocence??? or any business that has employees... or any school... etc. etc. etc.

Read the context - which is precisely what I said. One must be charged for the presumption to come into play.

Yes doojable. . . Yes. People have made really impressive arguments on the "presumption of innocence" and what it means and where it is used. Why it need not be used here. These arguments are more than good enough to bring before a judge in a courtroom. I am really impressed by the fact that many here use such excellent reasoning skills. Must be backlash :) from the days of arrested development! Just kidding!! There are some bright and good people on this site. Well done. However, others still twist and bend meanings to suit a specific purpose. It gives me a real headache. People who say wrong is wrong. . . have to "prove" it?? It reminds me of TWI. . . that compassionless rhetoric. That "first breath" coldness of reasoning. It is perverse in my opinion. Really, it makes my tummy queasy. I just don't understand defending the "Rights" of a dead man who used the name and word of God to abuse innocents. What is there really to gain? Silence? That was what kept us in that whole mess for so long. . . the wonderful "lock box" of abuse. One rape is one "murder of the soul" too many. One coerced abortion is an abomination. One drunken group from a father or father figure is shameful and abusive. You can have it. . . defend it. . . and keep the perverse doctrine and "Doctor" which encouraged it. . . it is disgusting. I will pass.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest we stick to the topic of whether some dead guy is entitled to silence from his victims (rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault of a minor, etc) because of "presumption of innocence" to which has been amply proven he is not entitled. I really couldn't care less about WD's sideline as supplier of vpw materials on CD. it's more his weird assumptions that the dead MOG's reputation must be guarded at the expense of other people's constitutional rights that I find interesting.

Sure it's an opinion. If one is found guilty in a court of law it's called a legal opinion. One thing I can say about you WD is that you really like to put terminology in black and white categories. But just to make this stick, here's the dictionary definition: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. 4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case. 5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion. 6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Wierwille himself admitted to a crime when he spoke of the incident involving improper sexual conduct with a minor, though I suppose, in his opinion, it wasn't criminal. No matter, ignorance of the law is no excuse. There were several witnesses to his admission, by the way.

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/28...sunderstanding/ ...I wouldn’t blame you for being annoyed at this point, wondering what, if anything, it does mean. It’s been called the most misunderstood phrase in our language. It was rife during the O.J. Simpson catastrophe. Wouldn’t it be fun to know if some of the jurors who freed O.J. actually thought he was innocent? (I’ve decided that if I chance to meet the Juice at a party, I will chat amiably and then say, “If you’ll excuse me, I feel the need to talk to someone who hasn’t murdered anybody.”) Anyway, have I teased you long enough? The P. of I. has nothing whatever to do with you and me. We can talk, write, broadcast and even put up a billboard (if so foolish) stating that the accused is the one who did it. It has to do with our system. If you find yourself accused of a crime, you do not have to prove your innocence. The burden is on the other side. The prosecution has to prove your guilt. That’s about it. And it is not even a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence, relevant only to the judge and the jury. more from pbs... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january98/tvcourt3.html One big problem I see that prevents people from understanding the system is the fact that the media and the system itself -- judges, lawyers, etc -- keep perpetuating myths about the process that only mislead people. These myths are basically the ideals of justice -- presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt,etc -- that represent goals: they depict the way things would work in an ideal democratic society. The reality is much less laudable, but lawyers and journalists insist on portraying the myths as the way things work, rather than as the ideals they are. and the icing on the cake... http://aspen.conncoll.edu/politicsandcultu...age.cfm?key=537 ... as the presumption of innocence does not attach until a criminal process commences. The right, as the model charge to the jury printed above states, belongs to “all defendants in criminal case,” but if one is not a defendant in a criminal case, the right may not be invoked.

More on the fallacy of presumption of innocence from [gasp] a law professor http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Z...mYxMzJlYjJkNGQ= Monday, March 14, 2005 Presumption of Guilt [Jonah Goldberg] A useful summary of what should be obvious but isn't, from a reader: In law school, my Constitutional Law professor Akhil Amar frequently reminded us that the presumption of innocence is a courtroom presumption only. That is, before any evidence is introduced by the state, the jury in a criminal trial is bound to assume that the defendant is innocent. They are to to make no presumptions of guilt based on the fact that the defendant was arrested, indicted, and brought to trial. If the states presents no evidence, only the presumption of innocence is left, and the defendant must be aquitted. However, outside the courtroom no such presumption is required (emphasis mine). Hence, an employer may fire an employee for stealing from the supply closet without first obtaining a theft conviction in court. A student may be disciplined or expelled from college if marjijuana is found in his room by an RA - despite the fact that no criminal charges are brought. Likewise, outside the courtroom we are free to speculate about the guilt of defendants before trial, or even after an aquittal (after all, an aquittal only signals that the state could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - not that the defendant was innocent. Hence O.J. was aquitted, but later found liable for Nicole Brown's death by a civil jury who had only to find the plaintiff's case more probable than not). It betrays a serious misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence to insist that we must refer to Brian Nichols only as an "alleged criminal" until he is convicted.(emphasis mine) Witnesses saw him commit his crimes, there are official records of his transfer to the court, and he confessed his crimes to his kidnap victim. Those following along at home are certainly entitled to draw the logical conclusion regarding his guilt. and another... http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/004405.html p 8 & 9 I've been asked to explain more than once why, right from the beginning, I was saying publicly that there was no question Simpson was guilty. I take no proide in having been the first public personality to come out publiclyl against Simpson. It just happened that way. I was asked by the media how I felt about the case way back in the early summer of 1994, and I decided to be candid. Before I tell you why I did, I should point out that some people objected to my having done so. One reason was the presumptiopn of innocence in our society. Also, they felt as a member of the bar, I should, therefore, not have spoken of Simpson's guilt before the verdict. Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. Even the editorial sections of major American newspapers frequently express the view, in references to a pending case, that "we" -- meaning the editors and their readers -- have to presume that so-and-so is innocent. To illustrate that the presumption does not apply outside the courtroom, let's say an employer has evidence that an employee has committed theft. If the employer had to presume the person were innocent, he obviously couldn't fire the employee or do anything at all. But of course he not only can fire or demote the employee, he can report him to the authorities...

Your point is not only moot, it's a deliberate distraction. Suddenly, you've decided this entire discussion needs to focus on one specific item, rape. This thread is not specifically about rape. Start a separate thread to that effect if you so choose. If you say Wierwille was never convicted of a crime, you are correct. (As far as I know.) If you say no one ever witnessed him engaging in illegal activities, you are grossly in error. Entire rooms full of people witnessed him partaking of illegal activities.

What I said, or at least implied, is that there is an abundance of such documentation scattered across the pages of GSC, as well as external sources, such as Kristen and Karl's books. My one snip simply illustrated that upper leadership (Regional Coordinator) was complicit. And, though VPW is, in fact, implicated in that snip, it by no means represents the entirety of testimony that can be found here. Have you read T-Bone's recalling of an incident that involved VPW calling a 16 year old girl to the front of a roomful of Way Corps and showing her a sexually graphic pen? That may not seem like such a big deal to you but is is illegal and was witnessed by an entire roomful of people. There are also testimonies here that recall an incident when Wierwille stated, in front of a roomful of people, that he had fondled a family member in order to teach her about sexuality. There is more than one person at GSC who was in that room. I'm no lawyer but I'm inclined to believe that constitutes sexual assault and corruption of a minor. If you read the link I provided carefully, you will also see a reference to VPW transporting across state lines for the purpose of debauchery. You have to cross state lines to get from Ohio to Kansas and vice versa. You will also find, on GSC, an incident where VPW (identified through context) offered a minor female alcohol. When she pointed out to VPW that she was underage, he assured her it was O.K. because she was with him and proceeded to supply her with a drink. That's against the law in Ohio. You may say that she was foolish to accept the drink and you will be correct, but it doesn't negate the legality.

When you slip a drug into someones drink and then have sex with them while they are incapacitated, that is rape. It may not be rape in the same sense that many people use to define rape, (ie: forced physical violence that culminates in a sex act.) but it is, by legal definition, rape. Unwanted sex initiated trough coercion or psychological manipulation can also be sometimes defined as rape. Acting as a go-between to supply someone with sex partners is "pandering". It's also illegal. Exposing minors to pornography or sexually explicit materials is a crime. There are examples of that here and they name VPW. Supplying minors with alcohol is a crime in Ohio. There are examples of that here and they name VPW. Likewise, transporting a person across state lines for the purpose of "debauchery" is a federal crime. It is a violation of The Mann Act and does not require that a rape take place. There are examples of transporting for debauchery here on GSC and they name VPW. Here is an interesting link. http://www.yoursexhealth.org/html/details.php?det=1,0,0

my apologies, pond, if I misunderstood what you were getting at. I have a hard time sorting through your posts. it was the following portions of your posts that made me think you were implying vpw's victims had weakness of character... because they "let" it happen to them, then they didn't report it. and as far as this: and this there are statutes of limitations that require sexual assault be reported within a certain time-frame. from what I remember of the catholic church rapes, the statute had not run out for the young men pressing charges. also, perhaps you cannot call "attempted rape" "rape", but both are forms of sexual assault, which vpw most certainly committed on what appears from the evidence to be a regular basis.

"To document his point. Numbers remember? Not to mention 3 is a long way from 100s" Another moot point. I never said there were hundreds. (Though I personally believe hundreds to be an underestimate.) What I did was to merely provide a few examples. What you did was discount and ignore them and then try to steer the topic off course by redirecting the focus. BTW---You seem to be avoiding my "question".

Perhaps you missed this: One of the worst things that happened to me, while associated with the Way, was I was raped by a Region Coordinator who visited our "Way home" after his teaching. We had a glass of wine and the three of us "Way home girls" went to sleep in our respective rooms. As I laid in my bed asleep, he climbed on top of me, and with my face down, I woke to him being already in progress. I tried to protest, but he put his hand over my mouth and told me, "You are blessing a man of God by taking care of my needs." I surrendered and experience what I later found to be an out-of-body experience. It was as if I was watching some woman that looked like me being pummeled by a man she hadn't accepted into her bed. ********************************************* Glass of wine, out-of-body experience------------ Sounds an awful lot like like GHB. (Which, at that time, was an OTC drug if I'm not mistaken.)

First click on this link http://www.abouttheway.org/ Then go here and click on "sexual conduct". What does sexual conduct tell us about the degree of integrity and spiritual authority of TWI leadership, past and present? Then go here and click on "marsha". Rumors have circulated for years that V. P. Wierwille was a sexual predator. Marsha tells her story. Then go here and click on "Donna". Donna adds her memories of how Wierwille abused her, too. Then go here and click on "Kristen's Story". Kristen's Story offers her recollections of VP Wierwille's advances toward her. Then go here and click on "Schoenheit's Paper on Adultery". "Schoenheit's Paper on Adultery" - Way leaders once ordered followers to have nothing to do with this Bible research paper. Many Way leaders, including author John Schoenheit (who was on staff with TWI's Research Department at the time), were fired because they had read it. Why was it so disturbing? Get the picture?

Pond If you think this is about "some old guy touching your boobies", you have really, and I do mean REALLY, missed the point. How would you feel if someone, whom your daughter trusted, slipped some GHB into her drink and then had sex with her while she was incapacitated? Do you place that in the same category? For that matter, simply providing a minor with alcohol is a crime in Ohio. The legal drinking age in Ohio is 21. HQ is in Ohio. Wierwille lived in Ohio almost his entire life. Transporting someone across state lines for these sorts of activities is a federal crime. It's covered by The Mann Act. Bullying subordinates into sexual activity is sexual harassment. It's against the law. Using an office of authority for these types of purposes in Simony. It's an egregious breach of professional trust. Not only have many, many people come forth here on GSC to bear testimony, some of them are well known and their names have appeared here. And these are just the sexually oriented debacles that took place. There is much more. Things like threatening people with physical violence while brandishing firearms, plagiarism, misappropriation of funds that were intended for ministry work-----and the list goes on. No, this is hardly about "some old guy touching your boobies 30 years ago".

In the courts of America in rape cases the victims have to be willing to suffer being discredited by the defense attorneys. For those whose actions and words seek to turn the Greasespot into an adversarial forum similar to the courts, I feel no hesitation by simply replying f-ck off! I hope these victims will find peace in spite of the ones who buy the blame and incriminate the victim mentality.

Long read--------but pertinent. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=164

Dear TWI victims, Please feel free to infer that most everybody that counts here at the Greasespot Cafe will see through any attempt that would tend to liken believing your story with being inquisitorial as White Dove implies with this last post. You will find smart and good hearted people here who will listen to you. Dear Wierwille rape victims, It matters nothing to me who White Dove thinks is an internet wannabe. Please don't let this type of put down fool you into thinking that anyone will think less of you here. As a matter of fact it seems plain to me that many would be happy to fight FOR YOU. Dear TWI victims, Please do not believe anyone who points out that your stories are unverifiable and so we cannot believe you. Most people would call that "calling into question" your story, I understand this, and so does most everybody else here. Many folks here at the Greasespot knew you or knows somebody who knows you. Don't worry TWI victims. Most of us understand that it is cowardly to imply someone is lying without having the cohones to actually say someone is lying. Even if they choose to hide behind persnickety and unrealistic conversational mores.