gerechtelijk comite

Willem Vogler doet ook nog een duit in het zakje. Jehova getuigen mogen niet meedoen aan politiek. De Wachttoren keurt mijn politieke activiteit af en wil mij hiervoor straffen. 
Willem Vogler, tekent namens het rechtelijk comite
Jehovah’s getuigen
Gemeente Waalwijk-Baardwijk 12732
P/A Korenbloemstraat 22
5143AG  Waalwijk


607 bce

Is 607bce the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem? Is it important? It is if you are one of Jehovah’s witnesses. This date is now positioned as the primary basis for the many significant ‘prophecies’ and ‘claims’ which have been proclaimed by the Jehovah’s Witness movement worldwide. Up until a year ago, whenever I read the date “607 BCE” in the various magazines and literature that the Watchtower publish, I had no reason to doubt that the Society had a sound basis for applying this dating protocol in support of their teachings. If you too are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses reading this, you will no doubt agree with me that the norm is take for granted any of the information we are “fed” with as being absolutely rock solid. Why?……………Because the information comes directly from the Governing Body. That’s why! As a devout JW, I was always left completely satisfied with any of the Society’s assertions for dating. Indeed, I think most JW’s take it as gospel, anything that the Society comes out with. For me, my confidence in the Governing Body was always unreserved as is no doubt the case for millions of other JW’s worldwide who also feel the same. My feeling was that the Society would obviously have thoroughly checked out all the historical and archaeological evidence available and would only have used reliable dates, wouldn’t they. Wouldn’t they? WRONG! At the beginning of this year, my brother in law challenged me to investigate something for him. Being an Oxford University Graduate, he explained that he had done some research on the 607 BCE date and had found it somewhat impossible to come up with anything remotely similar to the date which the Society adopts. This is where the challenge came in; He wanted me to show to him both the Historical and Biblical evidence to substantiate the Society’s claim for the 607 date. Naturally, having confidence in the Society as being “God’s channel of communication”, I accepted the challenge and started a 4 month research project to verify the Watchtower’s teachings. I started my research by telephoning the British Museum and spoke to Mr Walker, the Assistant Curator of Babylonian Antiquities. He became pivotal in my researching of the Society’s teaching. I exhaustively questioned Mr Walker about all the evidence that I had already come up with in support of the 587 BCE date and went on to ask him why historians favour this date over the Society’s 607 BCE date. In response, he explained that there is numerous evidence to back up the 587 BCE date, and thus, directed me not only to all the artefacts available, but also to all the books I should study in order to make up my own mind. By now, this challenge had become so import to me that I decided to go and visit the museum to see the artefacts to prove it for myself. The more I researched this 607 BCE date, the more evidence I was finding that this “607 BCE” date just could not be right. In fact, I just couldn’t find anything on this date and was struggling to back up the Society in their dating. During one of the telephone conversations with Mr Walker, he suggested that I should read a book by Carl Olof Jonnson called “The Gentile Times Reconsidered”. So, I went out and bought this book and found that I just couldn’t put it down. I ended up reading it three times and went through it scrupulously to try and find some kind of “substantiation” for the Society’s teaching on the “607 BCE” date. I just had to prove the “587 BCE” date wrong. After all, if I couldn’t, it would have meant that the Governing Body had got it wrong…………surely not! Besides, everything comes directly from God through his “Channel of communication”…………… ………………………………….Doesn’t it? ………………“Of course it does!” I thought. So, I continued to go through all the evidence I had with a fine tooth comb in order to find something that would prove the Society’s teaching on 607 BCE. But, this became impossible to do. I just couldn’t find anything. Nothing at all! By now, I had become desperate to find some answers. So, in this desperation, I decided to write to the Governing Body in Brooklyn in the hope that they would be able to shed some “light” on “our” teaching of the 607 BCE date. The letter eventually took me 20 hours to put together because I felt that it was absolutely imperative that I get my facts right. With all the information I had researched, I collated it in such a way that it would read like a report, and thus make the points easier for the Society to respond to. I requested their help in answering the numerous questions I had posed to them in order for me to go back to my brother with the firm proof to support the “607 BCE” date teaching. My letter included a summary of the information I had found in the “The Gentile Times Reconsidered” book, however, what I didn’t do was refer to it or make any mention that I had read it as this would have revealed I had been reading what the Society classifies as “apostate literature”. As you will see when you read the letters I sent to the Society on the links below, the real source of the research is of course acknowledged and is published with the permission of the copyright owners. After reading my letter, please go on to read the first “reply” that I received from the Society which did absolutely nothing to satisfy my questions about their dating methods. You will see that as a result of the frustrating reply I got, I wrote another letter, only this time, rather than sending it to the Brooklyn Bethel and forwarding a copy to the British Branch, I actually addressed it to the British Branch instead. In conclusion, I leave you to make up your own mind, but just remember this: We should always be looking for “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God”. NO MATTER HOW HARD IT IS TO ACCEPT. The Gentile Times Reconsidered – (3rd edition), written by Carl Olof Jonsson and published by Commentary Press, Atlanta, U.S.A. If you want to order the book by Carl Olof Jonnson :



Watchtower Owns Warfare Technology

In years past the Watchtower would have distanced itself from any company or entity engaged in supplying warfare technology. Not so today! Note the following excerpts from the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION in Washington, D.C. involving a company that, among its products, is an engine used in “smart bombs”: We were organized under the laws of the State of Oregon on July 27, 1992 as Sky Technologies, Inc. On August 1, 1994, our name was officially changed by a vote of a majority of our shareholders to REGI U.S., Inc. We are controlled by Rand Energy Group Inc., a privately held British Columbia corporation (“RAND”), which, in turn, is controlled 51% by Reg Technologies Inc., a publicly held British Columbia corporation (“Reg Tech”). …. Rand Cam Engine Corp. is a privately held company whose stock is reportedly owned 50% by The Watchtower Society, a religious organization, 34% by James McCann and the balance by several other shareholders. Mr. McCann has indicated that he donated the shares held by The Watchtower Society to that organization but has retained a voting proxy for those shares. Accordingly, in Notes (3) and (4) above, beneficial ownership of the 5,073,200 shares registered in the name of Rand Energy Group Inc. has been attributed to The Watchtower Society and Mr. McCann. We believe it would be misleading and not provide clear disclosure to list as beneficial owners in the table the other entities and persons discussed in this paragraph, although a strict reading of Rule 13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 might require each such entity and person to be listed in the beneficial ownership table. …. Ceramic Rand Cam TM Engine On December 6, 2001 we announced that a U.S. Navy contract (SBIR No1-144) has been awarded to Advanced Ceramics Research (prime contractor) and REGI U.S., Inc. to build and test a Naval 0.5 horsepower ceramic engine. The proposed engine is a four stroke Rand Cam engine utilizing continuous injection and combustion in a single combustion chamber. The engine will be of all ceramic construction to permit high temperature operation, without cooling, to effectively burn heavy oil. This new motor will be developed for powering the U.S. Navy’s new Smart War-fighter Array of Re-configurable Modules (SWARM) low cost unmanned aerial vehicle. On April 4, 2002 we announced that we signed an agreement to grant a license to Advanced Ceramics Research, Inc. (“ACR”) for the Rand Cam based motors for 10 H.P. or less for the SBIR No 1-144 Navy Contract for the remote piloted applications. We agreed that a 5 year contract will also be granted to ACR for the Rand Cam concept motors for the commercial and military rights for the applications developed under the Navy contract for 10 H.P or less. 











Mr. A. de Snoo van Houthoff Buruma heeft een slordig werkje afgeleverd. In zijn eis schrijft hij dat de onteigening in de gemeente Vleuten is en niet in de gemeente Heusden plaatsvindt. Daarom heeft mr de Snoo een correctie rechtzaak geregeld waarbij hij geen uitnodiging naar mij R.H.B. van Uden en ook niet aan Vitak advocaten heeft gestuurd! In dit stuk staat dan ook dat wij afwezig waren. Natuurlijk waren wij afwezig. Wij wisten van niets.


United Nations

United Nations
Section DPI NGO Resource Centre
Mr. Paul Hoeffel Chief NGO Section Department of Public Information
Room L-1B-31
Fax (212) 963 2819

CC: CNN, Pravda, Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel

Heusden, April 19th 2009

Dear Mr. Hoeffel,

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that The Council of State of the Netherlands is a joke. A.M.L. van Rooij has been filing lawsuits to stop the immense pollution by our so called green Energy Powerplant Amercentrale
9 which is burning highly toxic materials containing carcinogenic substances. The Amer power station in Geertruidenberg is polluting the air. Treated wood should not be burned because toxic chemicals may be produced as part of the smoke and ashes. The westward wind brings the heavy polluted air to Heusden (Noord-Brabant). The air carries Arsenic, Chromium Oxide, and many other carcinogenic substances.(EURAL). The Dutch government is not listening to our health concerns. One should not be exposed to frequent or prolonged inhalation of sawdust from treated Wolmanized wood. The American Medical Association also advises against burning Wolmanized wood.

To make matters worse Wolmanized wood containing Arsenic and Chromium Oxide carcinogenic materials are used in toys for children. That is why the number of cancer patients in the kingdom of The Netherlands is increasing
exponentially. Young people do not have the necessary aberrant stem cells that may offer self-renewal pathways for the body. This may lead to an increase of young people becoming ill.

State Councillor mr. dr. J.C.K.W. Bartel handles the case on his own not obeying the rule that there should be a three-judge panel in the Council of State when there is a formal request for a new State Councillor, disregarding the rules of the Dutch law. We want to inform you of this grave matter and we would like this topic on the agenda of the United Nations as well. To our point of view this is even more important than the Kyoto protocol. On August 26th 2008 our president mr. dr. J.P. Balkenende wrote a letter that he no longer answers the letters with our health concerns, leaving us no other instrument than to draw international attention to our environmental concerns. Would you be so kind to escalate this to the board of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice?

Ing. R.H.B. van Uden
Robrechtstraat 19
NL5256 GN  Heusden

The Netherlands



‘Foutje’ bij procedure onteigening woning

Brabants Dagblad dinsdag 12 mei 2009 | 10:50

HEUSDEN – Vanwege een procedurefoutje gaat de gemeente Heusden het plan voor de onteigening van een woning in de Robrechtstraat in Oudheusden opnieuw ‘ter inzage’ leggen.
Het plan om te gaan onteigenen heeft van 30 juni tot en met 11 augustus 2008 al een keertje ter inzage gelegen. Maar dat is ‘pas’ op 2 juli in het plaatselijke weekkrant gepubliceerd. Toen de bescheiden dus al enkele dagen op het gemeentehuis voor het publiek beschikbaar waren. Dat procedurefoutje zou een Koninklijk Besluit in de weg kunnen staan.

Mede omdat het volgens de gemeente nog steeds niet is gelukt met de eigenaar van de woning tot overeenstemming te komen, is besloten de stukken nog een keer ter inzage te leggen.

Overigens verwacht de gemeente niet dat de voortgang van het plan Castellum in Oudheusden daarmee in gevaar komt. De Raad van State in Den Haag had al beslist dat de gemeente Heusden en woningcorporatie Woonveste konden beginnen met de sloop van de achtendertig huizen aan de Robrechtstraat, de Suibertusstraat, de A.Loeffstraat en de Verolmestraat. Op die plek komt nieuwbouw. De naoorlogse huizen worden vervangen door vierenveertig woningen en appartementen in een toren, het Castellum.

De gemeente Heusden heeft met alle bewoners van de sloophuizen een regeling kunnen treffen. Op de ene bewoner na in de Robrechtstraat. Hij geeft aan ‘tot het eind te blijven doorvechten’ voor het behoud van zijn huis in Oudheusden.


lijst met petitiedeelnemers 

A. Loeffstraat 15, fam. Ras

A. Loeffstraat 5, fam. Tunyay Ozkan
A. Loeffstraat 4, fam. H.M.Straters
A. Loeffstraat 6, fam. Groenhof
A. Loeffstraat 12, fam. A. Asma
A. Loeffstraat 18, fam. van Helvoort
A. Loeffstraat 10, fam. H. Ali Asma

Robrechtstraat 9, fam. Seyt Bolat
Robrechtstraat 17, fam. H.A. Machielsen
Robrechtstraat 22, fam. H.C. van Wijk
Robrechtstraat 5, fam. F.W. Wrede
Robrechtstraat 7, fam. Fitters
Robrechtstraat 15, fam. v.d. Griendt
Robrechtstraat 6, fam. S. Riddering
Robrechtstraat 2, fam. v. Berlo
Robrechtstraat 4, fam. M. v. Wijk
Robrechtstraat 1, fam. M. v. Berlo
Robrechtstraat 3, fam. Zafer Giftgi
Robrechtstraat 16, fam. Veysel Kunt
Robrechtstraat 18, fam. P. Fitters
Robrechtstraat 26, fam. W. Padduw
Robrechtstraat 28, fam. L. de Bodt
Robrechtstraat 30, fam. C. Taoulisch
Robrechtstraat 19, fam R. van Uden
Robrechtstraat 20, fam. A.P. v Kieg
Robrechtstraat 21, fam. A.v.Hooft
Robrechtstraat 12, fam. Sagt

Verolmestraat 19, fam. J. Willeboordse
Verolmestraat 23, fam. A.A.M. v.d. Meijden
Verolmestraat 21, fam. Berker
Verolmestraat 15, fam. G. v. Biljouw
Verolmestraat 2, fam. v/d Hoven
Verolmestraat 5, fam. Verhoeven
Verolmestraat 12, fam. C. Verhoeven
Verolmestraat 3, fam. Henry van den Hooven
Verolmestraat 1, fam. Annes
Verolmestraat 24, fam. H.G. Hoosbeek
Verolmestraat 4, fam. Mustafa Guvel
Verolmestraat 6, fam. Boumans
Verolmestraat 10, fam. M.H. Sen
Verolmestraat 14, fam. W. Boumans
Verolmestraat 16, fam. R. Dekker

v. Gochstraat 43, fam Heidi Vos
v. Gochstraat 45, fam. J. de Jong
v. Gochstraat 47, fam. E. de Gouw
v. Gochstraat 55, fam. J.K. Wetters

Voetiusstraat 5, fam. W. v. Hout
Voetiusstraat 2, fam.J. v. Steethoven

Kasteellaan 10, fam. H.J. Schuiling
Kasteellaan 5, fam. L.Weijers
Kasteellaan 3, fam. G. Verschuur
Kasteellaan 2, fam. Rullens

Suitbertusstraat 44, fam. Bregman
Suitbertusstraat 42, fam. M. Stamisic
Suitbertusstraat 38, fam. H. v. Driel
Suitbertusstraat 36, fam. v/d Pol
Suitbertusstraat 31, fam. van Loon
Suitbertusstraat 29, fam. R. Dommisse
Suitbertusstraat 23, fam. Berkelmans
Suitbertusstraat 19, fam. A.H. Schuurman
Suitbertusstraat 15, fam. S. Serellano
Suitbertusstraat 26, fam. v. Aalst
Suitbertusstraat 24, fam. Verhey
Suitbertusstraat 20, fam. Melinda Heijnen
Suitbertusstraat 18, fam. A. v. Alphen
Suitbertusstraat 16, fam. M. Calor
Suitbertusstraat 1, fam. M. Willebrands Kramer
Suitbertusstraat 5, fam. Breedveld
Suitbertusstraat 9, fam. A.J.J. de Bodt
Suitbertusstraat 35, fam. B. Noorda
Suitbertusstraat 41, fam. J. v. Hoven
Suitbertusstraat 30, fam. P.A. Boumans
Suitbertusstraat 27, fam. H.J. v. Wijk

Irenestraat 45, fam. van den Hout