In 1976 Allen Shuster went to work fulltime for the Watchtower organization. In 1979 the Watchtower organization appointed Shuster as an elder. Since 1981 he has worked fulltime in the corporation’s Service Department at its world headquarters.
On February 15, 2012 Shuster was deposed for the case of Jane Doe v. Watchtower. Under oath he was asked a question, and his answer gives reason for suspicion. The question and his answer read[1]:
After this sworn statement by Watchtower’s representative, the Watchtower corporation went on to make its own declaration of the same subject saying[2]:
So we have this:
Watchtower says “a compilation of data and statistical evidence concerning child sex abuse claims made to Watchtower does not exist.”
Is that statement by Watchtower true?
The Watchtower organization is known to ask for and maintain loads of data on everything from how many booklets Jehovah’s Witnesses pass out to how many hours are spent doing this work, to which Jehovah’s Witnesses have been disfellowshipped and why. This latter recordkeeping has to do with the organization’s judicial system.
Under Watchtower's judicial system when one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is disfellowshipped by appointed officials (known as congregation elders) there is documentation required to be sent to the Watchtower organization. This information is given by completing form documents provided by Watchtower for this purpose.[3-7] All this documentation goes staight to Watchtower's Service Department, which is where Allen Shuster has worked fulltime for the past 31-years.
When it comes to maintaining its data collection the Watchtower organization is meticulous, particularly of data collected about disfellowshipped members. See, for example, the following letter and enclosure sent to a congregation in New York:
This correspondence is dated 1970 and it addresses information sent in from 1948! The sole purpose of this correspondence was because someone in Watchtower’s Service Department found a detail that was 22-years-old that had not been placed in Watchtower’s registry! This information included the name of the individual disfellowshipped and the action that led to this. Watchtower’s thoroughness is further evidenced by it keeping track of not only what this person did but even who (by name!) they did it with. If that's not enough, in this letter (22-years after the fact!) Watchtower asks from even more data for its collection! Watchtower wrote "if you have any information on this person without going to a lot of difficulty, we would appreciate having it."
This registry is the Watchtower organization’s compilation of information about members who’ve been subjected to the organization’s policy of disfellowshipping (excommunication), and it includes the related nature of behavior. This letter speaks of a compilation of data that Watchtower says does not exist. If this registry of information does not exist then why is the Watchtower writing letters to congregations to make sure it is kept up to date?
In Jane Doe v. Watchtower, the organization’s statement also suggests it does not use this data for statistical purposes. Yet in year 1989 the Watchtower makes the following statement[8]:
In his deposition Allen Shuster admitted there are many reasons why a person could be disfellowshipped, and immorality is only one such reason. If the Watchtower organization does not have a database from which to extrapolate statistical information then how does it know that of some 40,000 annual disfellowshippings “most” are because of immorality?
There is no doubt the Watchtower organization has a huge database containing the names of individuals disfellowshipped for sexual molestation of a child or children. It collects intimate information in each case and maintains this registry in meticulous fashion.
This registry is what Watchtower has, yet it says does not exist.
Based on Allen Shuster's sworn testimony, I guess in all his 31-years working fulltime in Watchtower's Service Department not a soul let him in on this big registry of data.
Marvin Shilmer
______________
References
1. Jane Doe v. Watchtower et al, Superior Court of California, County of Almeda, Video Deposition Allen Shuster, Patterson, New York, February 15, 2012.
2. Jane Doe v. Watchtower et al, Superior Court of California, County of Almeda, Filing by Watchtower of May 23, 2012.
3. S-77 form from 1999
4. S-77 form from 1992
5. S-79 forms for year 1984
6. S-78 form from year 1960
7. Special Blue Envelopes
8. For more on Jane Doe v. Watchtower et al, see:
● Watchtower's___
Database — What is the real fear?
● Verdicts
for $28,000,001 against Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
0 comments:
Post a Comment