Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  waiting

  In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Tenth, 1988, Case No. 88-1374, filed on June 22, 1988, Clerk Joseph F. Spanol, Jr.

  On that date and file number, The Attoreny James M. McCabe,and Donald T. Ridley, 25 Colombia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11251 (718)606-4993, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. filed a "Friends of the Court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, Jimmy Swaggart and his Ministries.

  Why would the Watchtower Society, direct channel for Jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates Babylon the Great, which also Christiandom is the largest part, go into the Supreme Court of the United States and file a legal brief to help Jimmy Swaggart's ministries in his trial which was Case No. 88-1374: Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, Appelant vs. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA, Appeller?

  Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries was being sued by the state of California for non-payment of sales tax on his miscellaneous religious articles in sold.
  Cal. wanted Swaggart to come up with $183,000 in sales tax.

  February, 1989, US Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for 15 states to exempt religious books from sales tax. Jimmy Swaggart had to pay the taxes.

  Coincidently, Our Kingdom Ministry, March, 1991, p. 3-4, "Our Simplified Literature Distribution Arrangement" is implemented. We no longer sell literature - we give it away - and ask for a donation for preaching work.

  We have always been taught - repeatedly - never to give a donation, nay, not even to buy a darn good looking cake at a bake sale sponsored by a church. Never to go to a church bazaar, never to buy those darned chocolate candy bars the kids sell to raise money, never to go to a fish fry, or pancake breakfast. Never do work for a church, the list just goes on and on and on....and we actually would be getting something in return. But NO!!!!! Never become tainted by the Evil Harlot - Babylon the Great - Christiandom! Never give monitary support to her - it will only make her a stronger enemy against God's Kingdom!

  Sooooooo, why in the world would the Faithful and Discreet Slave try to help Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries save money on sales tax? Why would they "commit spiritual fornication" with Babylon the Great for money? Could they have had a secret motive for throwing their legal weight in favor of Jimmy, as supplicating for him as a "Friend of the Court"?

  Of course, the Watchtower Society wasn't the only religious organization trying to help Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries save money on taxes. Others who came to his monitary aid were:

  International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California

  Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability

  Prison Fellowship

  This information came from the Williamsport Sun-Gazette, January 17, 1990.

  My daughter has worked years as a paralegal and is disfellowshipped. She was appalled that the Society would do something like that. According to her, to file a "Friends of the Court" brief in behalf of someone else is extremely serious and legally says that the filer fully agrees with the person being sued!

  By the way, she also said anyone could write to the State of California, and for a small payment (not donation) get a legal copy of Case #88-1374.

  Religion and money make strange bedfellows, don't they?
• 

  Seven

  I could be wrong[you might ask your daugheter]but I think the WTS got involved because there was a question of Swaggart's ministries possibly losing their tax exempt status. This would then have a domino effect. We are covered now by the donation agreement. We were merely looking out for our own interests.

  7of9

  The Methodist church in my area has the finest chicken pie dinners in all of Christiandom.
• 

  spectromize

  Dear waiting,

  Would you by any chance have the address for the state of california where I could get a copy of case # 88-1374? Or maybe tell me what I should look under?
• 

  waiting

  Dear Spectrum, I apologize - when I showed the actual copy of this court filing to my daughter and her boss, The Attorney, they told me that it is hard to get a copy of a Supreme Court Ruling in Washington DC. Their the Big Guys. My daughter was suprised this court case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. I thought the records went by where a case was filed, not where it ended up at. My mistake.

  I asked her boss, The Attorney, what was a Friend of the Court brief and why someone would file one.
  He said it usually meant that the filers had a vested interest in how the case was settled.

  Such as, if Jimmy Swaggart lost his court case, which he did, he would have to pay a $183,000 in sales tax, which I assumed he paid.

  Wellllll, the Society didn't want to pay any sales tax, either. So, they threw their legal weight in with Jimmy. Jimmy lost, and our literature "placement" went to a "simplified arrangement" pronto.

  I apologize for not knowing the ins and outs of the legal setup, along with much else, it's not my area.
• 

  waystation

  Amicus curiae
  Latin: friend of the court. Refers more specifically to persons asking for permission to intervene in a case in which they are neither plaintiff or defendant, usually to present their point of view (or that of their organization) in a case which has the potential of setting a legal precedent in their area of activity. This is common, for example, in civil rights cases and, in some instances, can only be done with the permission of the parties or the court.

  My daughter has worked years as a paralegal and is disfellowshipped. She was appalled that the Society would do something like that. According to her, to file a "Friends of the Court" brief in behalf of someone else is extremely serious and legally says that the filer fully agrees with the person being sued!

  She is misinformed.

  Edited by - waystation on 22 May 2000 22:46:38
• 

  waystation

  double post

  Edited by - waystation on 22 May 2000 22:42:26
• 

  waiting

  Dear Waystation,

  Which point was she misinformed about? Being appalled that our untainted Watchtower Society would have a vested interested in helping Jimmy Swaggart & Ministeries? So was I.

  You state, kinda quoting you, that the persons who file the Friend of the Court brief might even have to have the permission of the parties involved or the Court. Well, no duh. That would suggest that the Society for Krishna Consciousness "might even" have had permission, along with other Churches, to file their similiar view points, also. Point well taken, and as I above stated, religion and money make strange bedfellows.

  You also stated: "to intervene in a case in which they are neither plaintiff or defendant, usually to present their point of view (or that of their organization) in a case which has the potential of setting a legal precedent in their area of activity." Well, how do you and I disagree on that statement?

  Jimmy Swaggart was being sued for CA sales tax. The Watchtower, along with other churches, do not want to pay sales tax. Thus, they approach the court, with permission, to file a Amicus curiae - for everyone's potential monetary benefit.

  By the way, my daughter's boss, The Attorney, was the one who said the filer of the Amicus curiae
  usually was in agreement with seeing the outcome of the court case to be decided in favor the one they were filing on behalf of - Jimmy Swaggart.

  So, I really don't see your point - our beloved Watchtower Society discourages us from buying Girl Scout cookies and giving old clothes to the poor thru the Salvation Army - we must never lend our support or money to another religious organization, even if it actually has the potential of helping kids and poor people. We have been taught that helping doesn't matter - we must stay untainted by Babylon the Great.

  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society lended their support to Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries - to help fend off potentially "setting a legal precedent in their area of activity." And they were trying to save themselves money - which would have helped Jimmy Swaggart save money.

  Quoting the Conclusion of the Friends of the Court brief filed by the Society: "However, Watchtower disagrees with the California court's abandonment of the following fundamental principle in Murdock: The mere fact that the religious literature is "sold" by itinerant preachers rather than "donated" does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise. If it did, then the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project. The constitutional rights of those spreading their religious beliefs through the spoken and printed word are not to be gauged by standards governing retailers and wholesalers of books...The problem of drawing the line between a purely commercial activity and a religious group will at times be difficult.

  319U.S. at 1II.

  Despite the occasional difficulties in distinguishing commercial from religous activities, the distinction exists and must be observed. Where the activity is religious, such as that of ministers of Jehovah's Witnesses, the burdens imposed on retail merchants (to register, file quarterly returns, collect and pay license or sales or use or whatever taxes) should not encumber the right to freely deliver or receive a sermon, printed or otherwise."

  Obviously, the Supreme Court of the United State of America did not agree with Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries, Watchtower Society, National Council of Churches and Society for Krishn Consciousness.

  Again, for the record, Jimmy was ruled to pay his sales tax owed, and Jehovah's Witnesses went to a complete donation system - even for their assembly food.
• 

  waystation

  The part that I put in quotes was obviously what I was saying she was misinformed about. Specifically, that the filer "fully agrees with the person being sued." The definition of an amicus curiae is not mine, it is from a legal dictionary.

  By the way, my daughter's boss, The Attorney, was the one who said the filer of the Amicus curiae usually was in agreement with seeing the outcome of the court case to be decided in favor the one they were filing on behalf of - Jimmy Swaggart.

  The filer is concerned with the one part of the case which it addresses, not necessarily the end result of the court case

  Again, for the record, Jimmy was ruled to pay his sales tax owed, and Jehovah's Witnesses went to a complete donation system - even for their assembly food.

  That's neither immoral nor illegal.

  Edited by - waystation on 23 May 2000 0:34:42
• 

  spectromize

  Waystation,

  Please pull a coin from you pocket. Read it and what do you see on your coin.

  Pay back Ceasars things to Ceasar and God's things to God!
• 

  waiting

  Dear Waystation,

  Glad to hear from you again. My daughter may have been misinformed - so might The Attorney, but he's won some a multi-million dollar case against Ford Motor Co. and my daughter did most of the research, along with others.

  I tend to agree with them. Perhaps the Society did not agree with Jimmy - fully - your obvious quote. However, by their putting their legal weight behind him to try to sway the court's opinion to "THEIR point of view (or that of an organization) in a case which has the potential of setting a legal precedent in THEIR area of activity." Your words.

  Your words are in the same line of thought as the Watchtower, Jimmy, The Attorney, my daughter, and myself - the Society had a vested interested in trying to secure legal precedent against paying sales tax.

  Again, where do we disagree and what's your
  point? Or do we somewhat agree and your just trying to pick my words apart. I'll be the first to acknowledge the computer illiteracy, and I've above said legalities are not my area - but I'm right on this basic point -

  We've been taught to have nothing to do with false religion - our teacher had something to do with false religion - for the "setting of a legal precedent" for money benefits.

  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.