U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on JW D-to-D

by RationalWitness 17 Replies latest jw friends

  • pettygrudger

    Wow sunspot - instant day-nightmare! Do they actually still put these pics in their literature? I wonder how all the crews @ ground zero feel about being "comforted" w/this kind of crap!!!!!

  • joelbear

    Which publication is this one from?

  • pettygrudger

    P.S. - isn't that Fred Hall in the picture?

  • sf

    The docket:

    < http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1737.htm

    No. 00-1737 Status: GRANTED
    Title: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et
    al., Petitioners
    Village of Stratton, et al.
    Docketed: Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    May 21, 2001 (99-4087, 00-3325)

    ~~Date~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    May 18 2001 Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 20, 2001)
    Jun 20 2001 Brief of respondents Village of Stratton, Ohio, and John Abdalla in
    opposition filed.
    Jul 3 2001 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2001
    Jul 6 2001 Reply brief of petitioners Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
    York, Inc., et al. filed.
    Oct 1 2001 REDISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2001
    Oct 1 2001 Record requested.
    Oct 10 2001 REDISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 12, 2001
    Oct 12 2001 Record filed.
    Oct 15 2001 Petition GRANTED. limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.


    ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
    Attorneys for Petitioner:
    Paul D. Polidoro Legal Department 8453061000
    100 Watchtower Drive
    Patterson, NY 12563
    Party name: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.

    Attorneys for Respondent:
    Abraham Cantor Abraham Cantor & Associates 4403547749
    9930 Johnnycake Ridge Road
    Concord, OH 44060
    Party name: Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al.

  • JAVA

    It's a shame the US Supreme Court isn't ruling on honesty (e.g., what is the REAL REASON why JWs go door to door). If someone is trying to sell vacuum cleaners door to door, it doesn't take long before you know what they're up to. The JWs knock on the door offering a so-called free home Bible study. That's all the householder knows until they are sucked into various mindsets during the indoctrination phase. It's very dishonest, and the intent (i.e., becoming another salesperson for the Watchtower) is withheld from the householder. Even if the householder knows the names of the Witnesses, their reason for being there is an anonymous act to the unsuspecting.

    However the US Supreme Court has a history of treading lightly on religious issues even if the sect is nothing more than a sells scam. Don't expect much from this ruling.

  • Geegee

    I think this happened in Quebec a while ago, Do you remeber the outcome

  • sf

    The attorney representing the Supreme Court Solicitation case rebutt from a case in '98:

    < http://www.jesus-witnesses.com/elderabuse.htm

    Start Page

    Main page for the Jesus' Witnesses site.

    JW News

    Jehovah's Witnesses making the news.

    JW Views

    JW email to Jesus' Witnesses and our responses

    Letters of Disassociation

    Stirring testimonials and thought-provoking letters of resignation from former Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Contact us

    If you disagree with any points on this web site or if you have a comment or suggestion, please use the preceding link and let us know! Our goal is to insure that we do not in any way MISrepresent anyone.
    Religious group invokes rights in abuse case

    By Steven G. Vegh Staff Writer©Copyright < http://www.portland.com/copy.htm>1998 Guy Gannett Communications

    The Jehovah's Witnesses are invoking their constitutional right to religious freedom as a defense in a lawsuit that blames the church for sexual abuse by a member.

    The lawsuit, filed by Bryan Rees in Cumberland County Superior Court, seeks unspecified damages for abuse that Rees says he endured between 1989 and 1992. It names Larry Baker as the man who abused him.

    The lawsuit also names the denomination, known formally as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc.; Alan Ayers, Rees's stepfather and a church leader; and Patrick LaBreck and Robert Wells, who Rees says were leaders in his congregation.

    Rees claims that leaders in the Augusta church he attended as a teen-ager knew that Baker had molested a child in the past but did not warn church members or expel Baker. That failure left Rees vulnerable to abuse, the lawsuit says. Rees is now 23 and lives in Portland.

    The First Amendment to the Constitution provides several protections, one of which prevents Congress from prohibiting the free practice of religion.

    The way in which the Watchtower Society chooses leaders and disciplines church members is part of its practice of religion, says Bruce Mallonee, the attorney representing Wells, LaBreck and the Society.

    ''If they can be required to go to trial and defend their actions . . . they'll have to base their decisions not on what their prayers and Bible tell them, but on what they think a jury would require of them,'' Mallonee said.

    Mallonee has asked the court to dismiss the case. A ruling on that request is expected this summer.

    Rees's attorney says that churches and church leaders should be held accountable for leaders' mistakes.

    ''It's disgusting to think their interest in governing their own people somehow surpasses the state's and our own interest in making sure (abuse) doesn't happen,'' Michael J. Waxman said.

    According to the lawsuit, Baker was Rees's next-door neighbor in the Lincoln County town of Jefferson and a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation to which Rees's family belonged.

    The lawsuit says that Ayers, Wells and LaBreck were elders in the congregation who served on a church panel that disciplined Baker before 1989 for molesting a boy. The panel forbade Baker from having contact with children in the church and demoted him from his position as an elder.

    The lawsuit says the congregation was never told about Baker's acts, leaving Rees vulnerable to abuse.

    According to Rees, Baker started abusing him in 1989 and continued until 1992. The lawsuit says that during that time, Baker regained his leadership post as an elder.

    Rees later told a counselor about the abuse, and the case was reported to police. Baker was convicted in 1993 of unlawful sexual contact and sexual abuse of a minor.

    Court papers filed by attorney M. Michaela Murphy on behalf of Baker deny the bulk of Rees's allegations. Murphy had no comment when contacted Monday.

    According to Waxman, the Jehovah's Witnesses dodged their responsibility to protect children when the elders kept their discipline against Baker confidential.

    But Mallonee says that if the case goes to trial, ''(that) puts the court in the position of telling the religious organization how to run its affairs.''

    Attorneys disagree on whether churches can cite the First Amendment in a case like this one.

    ''To say this (case) should be dismissed . . . because they're a church and immune from civil liability because of the First Amendment seems a creative argument,'' said Cabanne Howard, who teaches at the University of Maine School of Law.
    But David Gregory, who also is on the law school's faculty, said the case probably falls under the principal of avoiding interference with religious beliefs by not treating churches under ordinary liability laws.

    A Jehovah's Witness Lawyer from the Watchtower's Patterson, NY branch writes a rebuttal:
    Published on Saturday, May 23, 1998 Page: 8A ©1998 Guy Gannett Communications

    Church has no control over its members

    It is not my practice to litigate a matter outside of the courtroom, but as an attorney involved in representing the interests of Jehovah's Witnesses, I must respond to the false allegations that sexual abuse was perpetrated by an elder, contained in Mr. Vegh's article of May 12.

    Jehovah's Witnesses believe they have a responsibility before God to protect the children in the congregation.

    The Watchtower Society has stated its official position in the Jan. 1, 1997, ``Watchtower.'' ``For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation.''

    The perpetrator at no time held a leadership position in the church - not before the wrongdoing, not at the time of the wrongdoing, not after the wrongdoing. The May 12 article is wrong when it says he ``regained his leadership post as an elder.'' He was a next-door neighbor of the plaintiff and a fellow parishioner.

    The plaintiff is seeking to hold the church responsible for activities that took place in a private setting, between neighbors.
    Clearly, the personal activities of church members are outside of the control of the church.

    The plaintiff's counsel seeks to strip a church of the sanctity and complete confidentiality of the confession and impose upon it liability for the wrongdoing of its members.

    When all the facts have been developed, in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion, it will be clear that the Watchtower Society and church elders did all that was possible to safeguard the plaintiff.

    Paul D. Polidoro
    Patterson, N.Y.

    Copyright © 1993-2000, Jesus' Witnesses. All rights reserved.
    Last revision: January 24, 2000.

    So it would seem Mr. Polidoro is well AWARE of Pedophiles infesting congregations. This case should be interesting given the fact that I have emailed certain items to certain "people" regarding just how important these "cards" are. And that Mr. Polidoro defends child molesters!! Anyone got a problem with that? Lets roll!


  • RationalWitness

    Hi GeeGee,

    Nope, sorry, I don't remember the outcome up there. Perhaps someone else here does. Email me, will you?


Share this