Watchtower gets mentioned in Sexual Abuse Case

by RR 6 Replies latest social current

• 

  RR

  Found this today.... is this Barbara?

  We begin our discussion of whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case with the long-recognized constitutional premise that courts will not become involved in matters of religious doctrine, governance or administration, policy or practice, or in "'any matter not affecting a property or civil right.'" Bentley v. Shanks, 348 S.W.2d 900, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1960)(quoting Lewis v. Partee, 62 S.W. 328, 333 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1901)). We previously have examined the history and evolution of this premise in depth, and it is not necessary to repeat that discussion here. See, e.g., Anderson v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc'y of New York, Inc., No. M2004-01066-COA-R9-CV, 2007 WL 161035 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2007). We reiterate that, grounded in our nation's belief in the separation of church and state and rooted in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the adjudication of disputes requiring extensive inquiry into matters of "ecclesiastical cognizance." Id. at *5 (quoting Burgess v. Rock Creek Baptist Church, 734 F.Supp. 30, 31 http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=intnco20100527650
• 

  Mythbuster

  http://jehovah.to/gen/legal/state/anderson.htm

  Anderson v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.

  Slip Copy, 2007 WL 161035 (Tenn.Ct.App.)

  Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
  Barbara J. ANDERSON, et al.
  v.
  WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al.

  No. M2004-01066-COA-R9-CV.

  April 14, 2005 Session.
  Jan. 19, 2007.PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., and DONALD P. HARRIS, Senior J., joined.

  OPINION

  PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J.
  *1 Two former members of the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses filed suit against the church and its leaders for damages associated with their expulsion from the organization. The defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(1) motion to dismiss their complaint on the ground that civil courts do not exercise jurisdiction over internal church matters. The trial court denied the motion. On interlocutory appeal, we hold that the trial court should have dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims because they are barred by the First Amendment's protection of purely religious matters from interference by secular courts.

  Plaintiff Barbara J. Anderson was a lifelong Jehovah's Witness. Her husband, A. Joseph Anderson, also a plaintiff, was an elder of the church. Both were members of the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Manchester, Tennessee, but were expelled or "disfellowshipped" from the church, leading to this litigation.

  Mr. and Ms. Anderson filed suit against various components of the church hierarchy and some specific church leaders FN1 (collectively "Church") and asserted eight claims in their complaint: (1) defamation; (2) defamation to the congregation; (3) false light invasion of privacy; (4) interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) fraud; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (8) wrongful disfellowshipping. They asked for $20 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

  FN1. The Complaint named as defendants the Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Manchester Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and numerous other divisions of the church, as well as individual elders of the Manchester congregation and spokesmen for the national organization The appellants' brief asserts that some of the named defendants "are not related to Jehovah's Witnesses in any way," including Watchtower Enterprises, LLC. Watchtower Foundation, Inc., Watchtower Associates, Ltd., and the Watchtower Group, Inc. We need not decide those issues in this appeal.

  The defendants responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. They argued that under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(1), the trial court must dismiss all the plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention bars the civil courts from interfering in the internal affairs of religious bodies. They also moved for dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) arguing the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

  More at the link.
• 

  Scott77

  What was the outcome of the court above?
• 

  Sayswho

  Based on the reasons set out, we reverse the trial court's actions in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the First Amendment's protection of decision of church tribunals on religious questions. We hold that all of the plaintiffs' claims, as alleged in the complaint, are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Accordingly, the amended complaint is dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson.
  
  Slip Copy, 2007 WL 161035 (Tenn.Ct.App.)
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Again, it seems the freedoms that were supposed to be established for individuals are applied to religious corporations instead. The legal system kind of sucks.
• 

  Scott77

  Basically, does this means that Mr and Mrs. Anderson lost and with that, paid all the cost of attorney fees to the WTS? If that is the case, perhaps that might provide a possible reason why the WTS behaves rogantly most of the times,thinking that all its actions are protected under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Sigh
• 

  Mythbuster

  I think RR's case is using the Anderson's case as a precedent.