Manipulation, intimidation, lies about what God could would should do if someone opened their mouths.
My thoughts are that it is the same reason that we allowed ourselves to be used, mistreated, stood by silently while others were abused, didn`t report crimes, sent our money in when we were eating mac and cheeses and ramen noodles....
I think that we were decieved, manipulated, our trust betrayed...in other words...brain washed.
It is the only explanation that I can come up with for why otherwise reasonable people allowed such an egregious breach of our constitutional rights :(
With all the verbal blood-baths people took as they exited TWI... with all the spilling of personal, confidential details of people's lives that "leadership" did - whether it was LCM or VPW or Who-Knows-Who-Harry.... Why the f**k didn't someone come back and sue their a$$es for slander?
Why and how did they manage to get away with it?
Hell, there's even one case where LCM threw a fit about someone who was pilot of Ambassador I, blackened their name like only he could - turning the air blue as he did it - and they decided to go thru the WC a second time to get "on track" with the present (oh BARF!) truth!
What about the people who left during the fog that LCM blasted on the leadership tapes?
LCM's "free speech" was abused - he spoke about what married couples did in their bed and what people endured as children while growing up - but he there was never backlash from it that I know of...
I just don't get it....
Mainly I think because it was "in house" slander, in front of a selective audience, who were trained to practically believe every word..
I think part of the answer to that question lies in the concept of "One True Household/Hedge of Protection" doctrine. Engaging in conflict with the organization or with leadership was viewed as walking outside "the hedge of protection". It was a fear driven tactic. Opposition to "the ministry" was seen as opposition to God, himself. I wasn't around when the "grease spot by midnight" phrase was coined but the same idea was certainly present in the early 1970's. And, in the late 1970's I knew someone who publicly spoke out against The Way only to find thugs from HQ on his doorstep giving him a stern warning to desist.
Another factor to be considered is the 'lock-box" practice. You certainly never wanted to bring problems out where the non-TWI public could see them. It's not too different from keeping what goes on in your own home private. Don't air your dirty laundry in public kind of thing. There was an unspoken understanding that it was inappropriate to let outsiders see "the ministry" in a less than positive light.
I'd say a lot of the reason is because of money it would take a lot of funds to pursue a case that is hard to win in the first place to the end. I pursued a different case" breach of contract" for class repeat's promised on the green card agreement, for some time as did some others , end result was they stalled the cases until they could redo the class and presto the Way of Abundance class appeared. They then promised to honor the contract if and when, fat chance, that they ever ran PFAL again we would be eligible to attend. That's why they are still stuck with Martindale's class today even though they booted him at least until some one else eventually reworks it.
Another reason is the teaching from 1 Samuel 24 where David put not his hand against Saul despite his pursuit of David to kill him.
7So David stayed his servants with these words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But Saul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way.
8David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself.
9And David said to Saul, Wherefore hearest thou men's words, saying, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt?
10Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD's anointed.
11Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it.
12The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.
13As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.
14After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea.
15The LORD therefore be judge, and judge between me and thee, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of thine hand.
16And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.
17And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil.
18And thou hast shewed this day how that thou hast dealt well with me: forasmuch as when the LORD had delivered me into thine hand, thou killedst me not.
19For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? wherefore the LORD reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day.
With all the verbal blood-baths people took as they exited TWI... with all the spilling of personal, confidential details of people's lives that "leadership" did - whether it was LCM or VPW or Who-Knows-Who-Harry.... Why the f**k didn't someone come back and sue their a$$es for slander?
There are several reasons why libel cases have not been filed.
The very top dogs avoid personal contact to insulate themselves, and have cronies do dirty work for them. Intimidation tactics are used to discourage lawsuits. They make up lies about very personal issues, such that taking legal action would expose a person to making public their personal business, which is a deterrant. They circle ranks among followers, blackballing individuals involved such that obtaining testimony would be difficult. When all that fails, they come up with a scapegoat and take punitive action against them to back off the victim. They use delaying and stalling tactics to push prosecution beyond legal limits which are typically 1 year to file.
Actually, there's a lot of parallels there as to why rape perpetrators are not often prosecuted successfully.
I wanted to sue a certain mook-MOG (small time guy - not at HQ) but I was told that it was a waste of time and money. Apparently to prove libel or slander, the plaintiff has the burden to prove 4 claims:
First, the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement.
Second, the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff.
Third, the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message.
Fourth, the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff's reputation.
Some of this would be hard to prove. (Of course being hard or difficult to prove didn't make the slander any less painful and it certainly should never have been used as an excuse to publicly humiliate someone.) If YOU were the one talked about - then YOU had to have the proof. So if something was said behind your back - it would be harder to prove. You'd need some very willing and equally ticked off witnesses to the slander. Some folks walked and never looked back, never cared what was being said about them.
The last burden of proof - showing that your reputation was injured - is what would get you laughed out of court. Think about it for a minute... how do you think a judge would react to hearing that you were called "possessed" - in a fairly closed meeting. NOW if your employer was in that meeting - then you might have a claim that would fly. But ultimately, the kind of injury that a lot of folks suffered, while very real and very painful, just wasn't "actionable" in a court of law.
At the time that I wanted to go to court, I was told that I wasn't "affected enough" by the statements made to warrant the time and money to go to court. It was more important to just move on with life.
My observation from my limited experience was that the mini-MOG who screamed at us was very careful to limit the witnesses he chose to those with absolute loyalty to him and TWI, the kind who would never say, "Yes, your honor, this man did in fact state to Mr. & Mrs. Garden that their son should be taken out and stoned to death." The witnesses were close to the chopping block themselves, due to their sin of home ownership, and would have defended him to the death.
The other thought I had was that the lying and slander generally started AFTER they gave one the boot, and since no one was speaking to the hapless individual, they wouldn't know they were being called possessed, etc. until much later, if at all.
I have no idea what this mini-MOG said about us, but I do know every time we saw an innie, they almost got whiplash looking the other way, so it must have been pretty imaginative, at least for him.
Some folks walked and never looked back, never cared what was being said about them.
That describes me after my departure. Things were said about me and situations were spun to make me look bad while I was still on staff. I didn't care much about that, either. I just wanted to be gone, so I left.
I never heard what, if anything, was said about me after I left, because the people to whom it would have been said (just my dept. at HQ--I was too much of a peon to make the lunchtime hit parade of copped-out possessos) weren't really speaking to me much at that point. A couple of the more stalwart sorts would say a polite "hi," but that's pretty much where the conversations ended. :)
A month or two after I quit my HQ job, I ran into a young woman at the St. Mary's McDonald's whom I'd trained in her job in Way Pub. She had always told me how much she respected and loved me when I was still on staff. That day, however, she turned pale when I said hi to her, looked like she might cry, and flew out of that place like she had wings. I felt so sorry for her, because she'd obviously been hoodwinked to think that I'd suddenly turned into some sort of three-headed monster because I'd dared to stand up to Queen Rosie and take a hike. (AW, I harbor no hard feelings toward you. I only hope and pray you got out of that God-forsaken place and that you're doing well!!)
I didn't much care if my name was mud around the twi farm. I figured those who knew me knew better, and I didn't much care what those who didn't know me thought. Filing a lawsuit never crossed my mind.
Agreed, White Dove, but these are the verses that they used that I heard:
Mt 5:25
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison
And particularly:
1 Corinthians 6:1-8
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren
In any event, we were all so conditioned that it was us who were copped out, useless, such failures – why would we argue against the MoG who had such wonderful insight) (barf) Like a wife beaten by her husband – we’d become conditioned to believe it was our fault. Specially when we were beaten up by Bible verses.
As such we had no right to complain, much less sue.
I wanted to sue a certain mook-MOG (small time guy - not at HQ) but I was told that it was a waste of time and money. Apparently to prove libel or slander, the plaintiff has the burden to prove 4 claims:
Some of this would be hard to prove. (Of course being hard or difficult to prove didn't make the slander any less painful and it certainly should never have been used as an excuse to publicly humiliate someone.) If YOU were the one talked about - then YOU had to have the proof. So if something was said behind your back - it would be harder to prove. You'd need some very willing and equally ticked off witnesses to the slander. Some folks walked and never looked back, never cared what was being said about them.
The last burden of proof - showing that your reputation was injured - is what would get you laughed out of court. Think about it for a minute... how do you think a judge would react to hearing that you were called "possessed" - in a fairly closed meeting. NOW if your employer was in that meeting - then you might have a claim that would fly. But ultimately, the kind of injury that a lot of folks suffered, while very real and very painful, just wasn't "actionable" in a court of law.
At the time that I wanted to go to court, I was told that I wasn't "affected enough" by the statements made to warrant the time and money to go to court. It was more important to just move on with life.
Every single lunch time speech, presentation, b!tch session - whatever you want to call it - was taped.
Ditto for WC nights.
There's plenty of evidence. Good luck getting your hands on it if you're on the wrong side of the wall of "zion"...
Why did we not sue for slander?How about we thought it was gods ministry,not to do anything against gods ministry,that gods ministry not be evil spoken against.The fact all were way brained(That like being harebrained except you use gods ministry jargon).Yes Virginia,the heavily indoctrinated "bought it hook line and sinker".Like the store "Toys are us"we were "Cults like us".
Thought that as "The tithe doth still provide" That if we did not"toe the line"we would all dry up and blow away,or at the very least,be a "GREASE SPOT BY MIDNIGHT".
Recommended Posts
rascal
Manipulation, intimidation, lies about what God could would should do if someone opened their mouths.
My thoughts are that it is the same reason that we allowed ourselves to be used, mistreated, stood by silently while others were abused, didn`t report crimes, sent our money in when we were eating mac and cheeses and ramen noodles....
I think that we were decieved, manipulated, our trust betrayed...in other words...brain washed.
It is the only explanation that I can come up with for why otherwise reasonable people allowed such an egregious breach of our constitutional rights :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Mainly I think because it was "in house" slander, in front of a selective audience, who were trained to practically believe every word..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
I'm also thinking about the circumstances when the slander occurred. The people getting slandered were generally Corps, without means or even a decent résumé if they should leave TWI. If they wanted to stay in, a lawsuit would get them kicked out and ostracized. If they left, they were most likely struggling to survive, with no bucks to put to the rent, let alone a lawyer. Lawsuits cost money, with no guarantee of winning.
Bullies don't push around contemporaries. They go after those least able to fight back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think part of the answer to that question lies in the concept of "One True Household/Hedge of Protection" doctrine. Engaging in conflict with the organization or with leadership was viewed as walking outside "the hedge of protection". It was a fear driven tactic. Opposition to "the ministry" was seen as opposition to God, himself. I wasn't around when the "grease spot by midnight" phrase was coined but the same idea was certainly present in the early 1970's. And, in the late 1970's I knew someone who publicly spoke out against The Way only to find thugs from HQ on his doorstep giving him a stern warning to desist.
Another factor to be considered is the 'lock-box" practice. You certainly never wanted to bring problems out where the non-TWI public could see them. It's not too different from keeping what goes on in your own home private. Don't air your dirty laundry in public kind of thing. There was an unspoken understanding that it was inappropriate to let outsiders see "the ministry" in a less than positive light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I'd say a lot of the reason is because of money it would take a lot of funds to pursue a case that is hard to win in the first place to the end. I pursued a different case" breach of contract" for class repeat's promised on the green card agreement, for some time as did some others , end result was they stalled the cases until they could redo the class and presto the Way of Abundance class appeared. They then promised to honor the contract if and when, fat chance, that they ever ran PFAL again we would be eligible to attend. That's why they are still stuck with Martindale's class today even though they booted him at least until some one else eventually reworks it.
Another reason is the teaching from 1 Samuel 24 where David put not his hand against Saul despite his pursuit of David to kill him.
7So David stayed his servants with these words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But Saul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way.
8David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself.
9And David said to Saul, Wherefore hearest thou men's words, saying, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt?
10Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD's anointed.
11Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it.
12The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.
13As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.
14After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea.
15The LORD therefore be judge, and judge between me and thee, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of thine hand.
16And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.
17And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil.
18And thou hast shewed this day how that thou hast dealt well with me: forasmuch as when the LORD had delivered me into thine hand, thou killedst me not.
19For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? wherefore the LORD reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There are several reasons why libel cases have not been filed.
The very top dogs avoid personal contact to insulate themselves, and have cronies do dirty work for them. Intimidation tactics are used to discourage lawsuits. They make up lies about very personal issues, such that taking legal action would expose a person to making public their personal business, which is a deterrant. They circle ranks among followers, blackballing individuals involved such that obtaining testimony would be difficult. When all that fails, they come up with a scapegoat and take punitive action against them to back off the victim. They use delaying and stalling tactics to push prosecution beyond legal limits which are typically 1 year to file.
Actually, there's a lot of parallels there as to why rape perpetrators are not often prosecuted successfully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I wanted to sue a certain mook-MOG (small time guy - not at HQ) but I was told that it was a waste of time and money. Apparently to prove libel or slander, the plaintiff has the burden to prove 4 claims:
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclo...bel-and-slander
Some of this would be hard to prove. (Of course being hard or difficult to prove didn't make the slander any less painful and it certainly should never have been used as an excuse to publicly humiliate someone.) If YOU were the one talked about - then YOU had to have the proof. So if something was said behind your back - it would be harder to prove. You'd need some very willing and equally ticked off witnesses to the slander. Some folks walked and never looked back, never cared what was being said about them.
The last burden of proof - showing that your reputation was injured - is what would get you laughed out of court. Think about it for a minute... how do you think a judge would react to hearing that you were called "possessed" - in a fairly closed meeting. NOW if your employer was in that meeting - then you might have a claim that would fly. But ultimately, the kind of injury that a lot of folks suffered, while very real and very painful, just wasn't "actionable" in a court of law.
At the time that I wanted to go to court, I was told that I wasn't "affected enough" by the statements made to warrant the time and money to go to court. It was more important to just move on with life.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
My observation from my limited experience was that the mini-MOG who screamed at us was very careful to limit the witnesses he chose to those with absolute loyalty to him and TWI, the kind who would never say, "Yes, your honor, this man did in fact state to Mr. & Mrs. Garden that their son should be taken out and stoned to death." The witnesses were close to the chopping block themselves, due to their sin of home ownership, and would have defended him to the death.
The other thought I had was that the lying and slander generally started AFTER they gave one the boot, and since no one was speaking to the hapless individual, they wouldn't know they were being called possessed, etc. until much later, if at all.
I have no idea what this mini-MOG said about us, but I do know every time we saw an innie, they almost got whiplash looking the other way, so it must have been pretty imaginative, at least for him.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
That describes me after my departure. Things were said about me and situations were spun to make me look bad while I was still on staff. I didn't care much about that, either. I just wanted to be gone, so I left.
I never heard what, if anything, was said about me after I left, because the people to whom it would have been said (just my dept. at HQ--I was too much of a peon to make the lunchtime hit parade of copped-out possessos) weren't really speaking to me much at that point. A couple of the more stalwart sorts would say a polite "hi," but that's pretty much where the conversations ended. :)
A month or two after I quit my HQ job, I ran into a young woman at the St. Mary's McDonald's whom I'd trained in her job in Way Pub. She had always told me how much she respected and loved me when I was still on staff. That day, however, she turned pale when I said hi to her, looked like she might cry, and flew out of that place like she had wings. I felt so sorry for her, because she'd obviously been hoodwinked to think that I'd suddenly turned into some sort of three-headed monster because I'd dared to stand up to Queen Rosie and take a hike. (AW, I harbor no hard feelings toward you. I only hope and pray you got out of that God-forsaken place and that you're doing well!!)
I didn't much care if my name was mud around the twi farm. I figured those who knew me knew better, and I didn't much care what those who didn't know me thought. Filing a lawsuit never crossed my mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Agreed, White Dove, but these are the verses that they used that I heard:
Mt 5:25
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison
And particularly:
1 Corinthians 6:1-8
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren
In any event, we were all so conditioned that it was us who were copped out, useless, such failures – why would we argue against the MoG who had such wonderful insight) (barf) Like a wife beaten by her husband – we’d become conditioned to believe it was our fault. Specially when we were beaten up by Bible verses.
As such we had no right to complain, much less sue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Every single lunch time speech, presentation, b!tch session - whatever you want to call it - was taped.
Ditto for WC nights.
There's plenty of evidence. Good luck getting your hands on it if you're on the wrong side of the wall of "zion"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Why did we not sue for slander?How about we thought it was gods ministry,not to do anything against gods ministry,that gods ministry not be evil spoken against.The fact all were way brained(That like being harebrained except you use gods ministry jargon).Yes Virginia,the heavily indoctrinated "bought it hook line and sinker".Like the store "Toys are us"we were "Cults like us".
Thought that as "The tithe doth still provide" That if we did not"toe the line"we would all dry up and blow away,or at the very least,be a "GREASE SPOT BY MIDNIGHT".
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.