I wouldnt send it..........id just read over a few times it will make you feel better
Should I send this letter threatening the a**holes?
I presented you men a viable approach if you wish a letter of disassociation. Why not take that option, and save us all the bother?
Why wont they accept a disassociation letter ???
If your name is announced its the same wording even if your DFed or DAed, so im a bit confused
The second letter was much better
Jeff - the less you have in written form the better. Your letter will surely be produced during the discovery phase if you do in fact file a law suit. Your words can be used against you. If I were you I would state in simple terms that if you are DF'd and it is announced that you will deem it as slander and anything that written between the BOE and the WTBTS against you will be deemed as libel and that you will seek under discovery rules to obtain your file materials and will pursue every legal avenue available to you, including but not limited to, court costs and legal fees. Of course the problem is that the WTBTS has an in house legal staff so really it costs them nothing, it will cost you more even if you pursue the claim as a pro se claimant.
Really, I think what would hurt them the most would be you no longer caring what they do and it having no consequence in your life. Whatever you do, good luck to you.
I certainly think that if you're serious about the legal approach, a written warning (with the post office's backup that they've received it) will go miles with your case.... but in court it will fall over if they read something this, okay sorry, but if I was a lawyer or a judge I'd think this was written by an angry kid. Cool down and write it again. Then cool down again and have another try.
bull$hit keep the emotions. these dopes understand nothing but a good tongue lashing. in fact i would go to each elders house and ream the living shit out of them, on thier own door step. they are shit and i treat jw's as such. in fact i would turn up the letter. some more. don't let anyone here scare you. only you know how you feel. don't let anyone talk you down, put these zombies in their place. you can write them anything your heart want's they will do NOTHING I MEAN NOTHING. I kick the shit out of jw's every day. (only with words) go all the way. they can do nothing but df you. i would be a thorn in their side , till the day i die. ;l........ treat them like cockaroaches that they are. step all over them. you will be happy for years that you . stuck it up thier asses . don't miss the chance or the memories... john
Jeff, add some of these court citings to your letter:
There is one case in particular that has clearly established in case law a right that most of us believe we had all along: the right to simply resign from a church. A second case is important to establish the church's vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations.
GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE Final decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 1989 Marian Guinn, a member of the Church of Christ of Collinsville, OK, hand delivered her resignation to the minister after he told her he was going to excommunicate her for fornication. The minister refused to honor the resignation, went ahead with the 'excommunication' and then announced it from the pulpit. Guinn sued and was awarded $390,000. On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn's resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister did after the minister received Guinn's resignation was tortable. In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned. The court ruled that with her resignation Guinn withdrew her consent to being treated as a member and she withdrew her consent to being subject to church discipline.
Of extra importance is the fact that the court ruled that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church.
In several subsequent court cases the Mormon church has agreed to the principles established in Guinn. They have not even attempted to argue that the principles do not apply to them.
THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)In 1985 the Mormon church 'excommunicated' Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case. The same account says that church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn't want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommuication': the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for 'name removal').
The Hancock case shows that the church is willing to settle out of court when someone sues because the church 'excommunicates' them after they've resigned their membership. There were some defamation issues in the Hancock case that do not apply to most other cases, however.
The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The church began having a process it calls 'name removal'. However, the church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is 'transgressing' should not be allowed to resign, that "name removal should not be used as a substitute for church discipline". If you've paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the church is wrong about that and they can be sued for 'excommunicating' someone who already resigned. At church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to 'discipline' proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are.
NOTE:The sample resignation letter available on this site, through the wording that is used, lets the church know that the person who sent it in knows what his or her rights are. Only rarely do they threaten to 'excommunicate' people who've used that letter. Even in cases of blatant 'transgression' the church usually just lets people go.
jef go back to the first letter, keep the nasty intent. lay it out on the line. no need to be nice and civil. [EDITED] them straight out from every angle including the . i'm going to sue you personnally issue. you have nothing to lose. don't listen to people here that tell you to be nice. these elders are crybabies. and scared shit of thier own shadow, you just have to show them how scared shit they are of themselves. this would take me less than 5 minutes. step; on them like cockaroaches. you will be happy , if you do for years to come. trust me i know my jw's john