by Tired of the Hypocrisy 68 Replies latest jw experiences
I swear some on this board need to get over their issues, or strap some explosives on and go to Brooklyn.
I don't have any personal issues that would be served. I'm the kind of person that feels compelled to fight evil when I find it. The good guys should always win. Evil prevails only when good men *wink, for gayboy* do nothing.
Dream on. A private organization has a right to expel members under our constitutional form of government here in the US.
Oh for the love of all that is unholy, get real. I swear some on this board need to get over their issues, or strap some explosives on and go to Brooklyn. My gosh. Stop being victims
I have no issues. I am concerned with the crap the wt gets away with at the expense of the people it traps inside its evil walls. I try to do good and when I see evil I try and fight it. Money is all that matters to the wt so the only legal way to take it from their greedy hands is to do so in court. I think that there has to be some way to nail these pigs and nail them good. As far as strapping on some explosives, I won't reply to that. I know you folks in Indonesia roll like that.
Well, I'm not trying to get in anyone's face here, so my response will be based on the body of the discussion and no one person posting. I'm saying this because I'm new here and I don't want to start off on the wrong foot....everyone has a right to their opinion.
When the assertion is made that anyone who wants to sue is playing the role of victim-that is a personal opinion or feeling and cannot be debated. It is also not a good argument to put anyone thinking about suing, off of the idea. A good argument is supported by substantiated facts, not by insibuation or name calling.
As far as any precedent being set, the legal system works like this: if you file a greivance in a state where the topic has never been heard before, there is no precedence and the court (if it finds basis after the discovery period) can hear the complaint. If a precendent has been set in a higher court, either in the state or the land (such as Supreme Court) the greivance can STILL BE filed if it can be shown to the court that this specific subject matter has not been addressed or the decision is no longer considered 'good law': such as the treatment of individuals baptized as minors. A blanket statement that there is already precedence in this area-is not accurate. That opinion is up to a Judge to decide-and no one, not even the arguing counsel can say what would be decided.
Finally, in regards to the argument that this topic is a waste of time, unattainable or otherwise an insult to the intelligence of anyone entertaining it;
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."-John Stuart Mill
This is America-we deserve to have our rights upheld. We deserve to be able to worship-or not worship freely without being followed, harassed, having our businesses affected, being cut off from ourr families. Anyone who thinks it is within the rights of the JW's to treat people with such utter lack of humanity, has forgotten what country they live in. If we don't fight for that, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I just have one more thing to say here about my previous post: you can attack me personally, my mispelled writing (apologies all around!) or try to make anyone who comes out with this idea feel like a prick. But, unless you can give me some substance, some documentation, some factual arguments to support your responses, then all I can think is that you are offering your opinions-nothing more. I can't argue opinions, you are welcome to them, but clearly opinions are not food for thought to the critical thinker-unless they are a politician.
Milligal:
I'm studying to be a lawyer, ironically my inspiration came from a 7 year long custody battle with my JW ex. I have thought extensively about the question you raised. Here's my humble opinion: a lawsuit in this category would have to be filed under some form of denial of freedom of religion.
First of all, I applaud you on studying to be a lawyer! Also interesting to see where your inspiration came from. You have first-hand experience to draw on and I think you, and possibly others studying to become lawyers of whom we are unaware, are the real up and coming threat to the borganization. Heck, some of the Society's own lawyers (whose own education was funded by the Society itself) may be turning against the Society, after viewing the shenanigans played out in the S. Cal. cases. The times they are a'changin!
Bring_the_Light's suggestion of the large ad taken out would probably have an impact as well. I'm all for positive discussion and strategy and support any and all initiatives. Never mind the naysayers, we will always have those.
Thank you for your posts and the helpful input. Here's to your graduation (whenever that may be!) and I pledge any and all support you may need in any lawsuit, class-action or not, if my input will make a difference.
The same here, and if you ever need help, just ask.
Milligal.....I like the way you think! This is exactly what is needed...more pioneers...(and I don't mean the JW kind).
I believe the FLDS stuff going on in Texas and Utah and elsewhere along with all the hoopla about Scientology's methods
of brainwashing and mind-control, plus the pedophilia incidents in the Catholic church and Jehovah's Witnesses,
may indeed cause the courts to take a new look at religion in general and re-evaluate religion's place in society and
perhaps legally set some boundaries. Keep on keepin' on Milligal.
Sorry to dash anybody's hopes, but we've already been down this road of suing the tower. Our story can be found http://freeminds.org/women/defendingtruth.htm
I'm pasting some of that account below without the conclusion because at the time I wrote our story the case was still alive. However, last year there was a conclusion of the matter in that the Tennessee Appellate Court ruled against us. Although our case was really very secular, three very lazy-minded justices, who were far from constitutional law experts, succumbed to the easy way out that Watchtower attorneys argued for which was this: church disputes can not be settled by secular courts. And last year the Supreme Court would not even entertain a review of our case.
We had two excellent attorneys, one being the best in South Carolina, who couldn't overcome the challenge set before us which is, simply put, the Paul case. It appears if a U. S. lawsuit is about wrongful church disfellowshipping of a church member, the courts lean on the Paul decision even though the issue was different in our case and we could prove slander, libel, fraud, coercion, etc., by WT leaders at headquarters. We had a good case and the local court agreed, but, sorry to say, when Watchtower attorneys get through expounding on religion's constitutional rights, higher courts won't give shunning cases the time of day. Someday, this mindset will change when indignant people have enough of the power exerted by religion upon the government and then there will be justice for church members when they are wrongly disfellowshipped and subsequently shunned by family and friends.
Barbara and Joe Anderson
"In our Complaint, we allege that the Defendants were motivated by purely secular reasons when they engaged in the actions complained of and that the actions were part of a fraudulent conspiracy to silence me when I tried to assist victims of child sexual abuse and as I tried to prevent the church from sheltering child abusers, which state law requires be reported. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the church autonomy doctrine and the First Amendment do not bar court review of purely secular actions taken by church organizations or of actions motivated by fraud or collusion. But despite this, the Defendants have tried to mislead the court by willful mischaracterization of the case, that it will trespass on the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine and ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. This was and continues to be their major argument as they ignore almost every Count in our Complaint.
On October 6, 2003, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint was heard by the court. The court ruled to allow us, the Plaintiffs, to go forward on all eight counts and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was respectfully denied.
Then in December of 2003 Jehovah's Witnesses attorneys appealed, something that they are experts at. They filed a motion for Interlocutory Appeal asking the court to allow Defendants to take the judge's denial of dismissal of our Complaint to the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville for review. Among other things, Defendants maintained [incorrectly] that every appellate court in the country have uniformly refused to recognize a fraud or collusion exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. They further contend that this court's subjecting an ecclesiastical tribunal's decision to excommunicate congregation members to secular court review conflicts with precedents of both the US Supreme Court and the TN Supreme Court.
Our attorneys responded by filing an Opposition to Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. The brief stated that Defendant's will not suffer any "irreparable injury" as they claim if the motion is denied; That discovery will not involve church doctrine and violate constitutional privileges; That there will not be needless, expensive and protracted litigation. Discovery will be short if the defendants will just show whether they did or did not fraudulently concoct the charges and did so hastily for purely secular reasons. If the defendants do not file frivolous objections to discovery requests, this discovery can be conducted promptly and inexpensively.
Further, our brief said that the Defendants have consistently and willfully mischaracterized the Plaintiffs allegations as a complaint about "internal church discipline." The Defendants have simply refused to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants fraudulently made up the allegations of spiritual misconduct which led to the disfellowshipping of the Plaintiffs. The brief ends with these words: "It can not be a policy of this state to permit the disfellowshipping of those who seek to protect the precious lives of young children. The Defendants can not hide behind purported constitutional privilege to continue their tortious conduct and maintain their conspiracy of silence to the detriment of young children of the church."
Finally, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Basically, again they claimed that inquiring into a religious membership decision is a constitutionally prohibited inquiry. Further, they stated, "as Anderson's well know, the outcome of this lawsuit will not affect their disfellowshipped status. That the legal process will not result in any secular mandate that the Plaintiffs be reinstated as Jehovah's Witnesses," although nowhere in the Complaint did we ask to be reinstated as Jehovah's Witnesses. Neither child abuse, nor any of the other paramount issues of importance in the Complaint are addressed by the Defendants in their brief.
During his opening remarks in the October 6, 2003 Defendant's Motion To Dismiss hearing, the kindly Tennessee judge, who was on the bench, stated that he didn't know anything about ecclesiastical law and never dealt with a case like ours before. He also discussed his very serious health problems making everyone aware that he was recovering from heart surgery and would probably need more hospitalization shortly. Yet, after considering closely both sides of the arguments presented, he saw good reason to allow our lawsuit to progress and overruled the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
However, when the Defendant's filed a motion for Interlocutory Appeal in December of 2003, this same judge succumbed to their wish after he held a very brief hearing on February 5, 2004, and allowed the case to go to the Tennessee Appellate Court in Nashville for review of his decision. Perhaps he thought this action prudent in light of Jehovah's Witnesses successful litigating record in the Supreme Court and subsequently in our case their constant use of the First Amendment church autonomy doctrine and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines as proof that he was treading on sacred ground and had made the wrong decision. Now we wait as our lawsuit's future rests in the hands of the Appellate Court to make a decision on whether the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss our lawsuit was correctly declined or not. It will take at least a year before briefs are filed and pleadings heard.
No matter what the future holds for our lawsuit, Jehovah's Witnesses who fought so valiantly to legally defend and establish their right to preach should be very concerned now about how they will be legally defending and establishing themselves in court by speaking the truth, inasmuch as whatever good they have done in the past will be tarnished and perhaps destroyed by government regulations if they lie about their involvement in harmful activities. If a religion has caused harm, they should not hide behind the First Amendment but be truthful or risk exposure and a loss of credibility."
All I can say is, the WTBS is getting away with murder. Try kicking someone out of your business, fraternal organization or other religion and then tell the co-workers, members or rest of the flock to treat them like Whores & Cheats...and see if you can get away with it.
-BONEZZ
