Public Defamation = DF'd ??? (page 6)

jonathan dough

If you went to law school and you're so sure about it there hotshot, why don't you find someone to represent and go sue the Society...

Well, for one thing, lawyers are prohibited from going out and finding someone in order to sue anyone. It's unethical.

keyser soze

The topic expanded as many topics do, to other claims for defamation and other causes of action in general.

My apologies for staying on topic.

trying to constrict or shoe-horn the issues is just an attempt to divert, which is a common JW tactic.

And equating someone with a JW is a common tactic of someone whose position is weak. I merely pointed out that publicly announcing that someone is no longer a member of your religion is not defamation. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise. Whether or not a person is a victim of vicious rumors is a completely separate issue.

Meeting Junkie No More

See, this is where it gets dicey...in Watchtowerland, everybody's conditioned to equate "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" with adulterer, drug user, worldly, Satan-influenced...yada, yada, yada. What needs to be brought out in open Court is that THE VERY ANNOUNCEMENT itself becomes 'defamation' because the religion itself will not let its membership believe that someone can disagree with the religion and still be treated with the usual civil and human rights to which that person is entitled.

You go, Jonathan Dough! It won't be long - there's got to be a solicitor somewhere willing to take on this behemoth - Lawrence Hughes is already chipping away at the conflict of interest stuff with the in-house attorneys - that should be a major blow once that decision comes down...I'm eagerly waiting for the outcome of that one ... hopefully, the writing is on the wall for the Brooklyn gang.

jonathan dough

I merely pointed out that publicly announcing that someone is no longer a member of your religion is not defamation. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise.

You haven't read a single word I wrote because I never claimed that it was. Not once.

jonathan dough

You go, Jonathan Dough!

Of course, I'm only looking at USA laws. What's this about conflict of interests up there?

undercover

...lawyers are prohibited from going out and finding someone in order to sue anyone. It's unethical.

That's not the Easter Bunny that Robert Vaughn is shilling for on cable TV...

or

Lawyers worried about being unethical... you're a funny guy...

Olin Moyles Ghost

Me: For example Barbara and Joe Anderson tried several novel tort theories against the Society, but all were dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Jonathan Dough: That is just one circuit. States have different laws. You can't go by that.

Me again: I hate to be pedantic about this (but I can't help myself). It's not technically a "circuit." It was the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which is part of the Tennessee state court system--separate from the U.S. Federal court system.

And, yes, states have different laws. The decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals is only binding upon the trial courts in the Tennessee state court system. But that decision is in harmony with other cases (such as the Paul v. Watchtower case--which was a federal court matter). This indicates that there is a general hostility toward such claims in the state and federal courts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I would love to see someone succeed in court against the WTS. But you need to be realistic and learn from the experiences of others who came before you. And that experience indicates that it is difficult if not impossible to succeed in a suit against the WTS related to disfellowshiping.

jonathan dough

It's not technically a "circuit." It was the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which is part of the Tennessee state court system--separate from the U.S. Federal court system.

I thought you were referring to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and you mistakenly referred to it as the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which happens often with laymen. Yes, the state of Tenessee has its own court of appeals. I would have to do some research before I could conclude that this decision is in harmony with other cases. HOWEVER you are overlooking one very important point when you said the following:

But you need to be realistic and learn from the experiences of others who came before you. And that experience indicates that it is difficult if not impossible to succeed in a suit against the WTS related to disfellowshiping.

And that point is that I never made this claim and in fact said the opposite, so I don't know who you are directing this to. This is what I posted above:

"Disfellowshipping in and of itself wouldn't most likely be actionable, they can boot out anyone they want for the most part, but the underlying facts that led up to it, for instance, that is what you want to focus on."

But that's all right, I don't always read other people's comments as closely as I should either. And I knew better than to have assumed you actually meant the Tennessee State Court of Appeals. I must add that until I read the case itself I doubt that it covers any and all issues related to the disfellowshipping.

http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-4.html#19d

ninja

jonathan dough= john doe?

Public Defamation = DF'd ???

Share this