Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Roamingfeline

    Quote: Our work has no such agreement. Neither explicitly or implicitly do we require or pressure for payment from a householder for our literature. There is no commerce . Even publishers are told the same thing, explicitly . A letter dated January 24, 1991, addressed to All Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States the Society said, "Should publishers and pioneers feel obligated to contribute to the Society’s worldwide word each time that they receive literature at the Kingdom Hall? No. As stated in the April 21, 1990, letter to all congregations in the United States: ‘Publishers may… make their own donations to support the worldwide work according to their ability and desire, whenever they choose to do so .—2 Cor. 8:10-15; 9:6-14.’" [Bold added by Friend] Unquote..


    That is utter bunk and you know it. I am not deaf, and my own ears heard talks from the platform in EXACT OPPOSITION to what is stated above. We were told that we should pay for the literature at the time we picked it up, by putting contributions in the box, and all contributions we received in service were ALSO supposed to be put into the box. They even gave talks admonishing the brothers that they were not giving ENOUGH money to cover the literature, tapes, and computer programs!!! It got so bad that it was happening at every meeting! I was totally disgusted by it all. You may know the "letter of the law" so to speak, what they write in their publications, but the WTBTS speaks with forked tongue. What they say and what they print are often two VERY different things.

  • Beans

    Wow one of the first Scandle posts!

  • Bangalore



  • Botzwana

    Wow....I never knew this. I stumbled on it by accident. Truly telling!

  • Listener

    Consider the principles involved -

    If their reliance is on God then why are they expressing an interest in man made law?

    If they consider themselves to be different to all other religions then why have they associated themselves with this court case and express their interest in it's outcome?

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    As a lawyer, I've helped prepare several amicus briefs before the Court. When you file an amicus, it is to help the court. Of course, you are asserting your own interests. You do not become a party. As far as civil rights goes, the ACLU and NAACP amicus briefs carry great weight and are superbly written, usually by leading law school professors. It is a great privilege. I don't see why normal people should be expected to know every technicality of law suits before the Court. A copy can be found at, Findlaw, and perhaps Lois Law. First Amendment cases are considered sexy. There should be much legal commentary on the Internet. It does not bind anyone since amicus briefs do not represent parties.

    The basic point is clear. I can't begin to estimate the thousands of dollars usually involved in completing these briefs. The commitment of resources is substantial. The Witnesses donated their time and what prestige they have to making certain they would not pay sales tax. Jimmy Swaggart, part of Bablon the Great, was the beneficiary as were the Witnesses and other groups listed. Considering, as someone pointed out, that we were told never to buy Girl Scout cookies, etc. donating hundreds of hours of legal time to Bablyon the Great is clearly a case of do what I say, not what I do.

    Their avarice would not bother me if I could have benefited from the strong org as a member. Unlike most societies, their members receive only intangible benefits. There is no Witness Red Cross, no youth groups, nothing. I am curious as to how Scientology works. Worse than the free time to Swaggart, is the fact that there is no means by which we may get an accounting of their decision to commit this time and money to Swaggart. It was in their interest to file the brief. Their interest is not our interest.

    The problem is that no active Witness will believe this knowledge. I wonder if anyone can be lukewarm or have doubts and stay in the group. All or nothing seems to reign. Throughout my life, I heard relatives who were clearly troubled by a double standard make rationalization after rationalization to comfort themselves. If it walks like a duck.....

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    Wow for a minute I thought waiting had started posting again!

    She was a real sweetie. I hope she's doing well.

  • Listener

    BOR said - Jimmy Swaggart, part of Bablon the Great, was the beneficiary as were the Witnesses and other groups listed.

    Thanks for your legal insight. Filing as 'friends of the court' isn't as innocent as they portray it to be. Here is a definition

    An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".

    In looking out for their own interests their worst enemy also benefits, there is something fundamentaly wrong with this. They have made themselves directly responsible.

    Is it possible that they are recieving their reward by a lack in funding?

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    The amicus briefs I worked on in civil rights were carefully coordinated within the civil rights division. Every group helped every other group decide which points to highlight with their individual expertise. The final rest was a coordinated set of briefs. My client agreed to not press certain issues that were a problem for another leading group. The Witnesses may not have coordinated its amicus briefs. Somehow my image of a Witness lawyer is one who is tainted. The overall mindset to be a Witness is so contrary to the way the overwhelming majority of lawyers approach life.

    Paying things to Caesar sounds absolute to me. Jesus did not qualify it. There is one rule for the rank and file and another for the leadership. Could a rank and file member suggest this legal strategy. The hierarchy is clear. My father, who gave me no toys and dressed me in thread bare clothes, supported immoral sisters with their bastard children. The children's wardrobe was so much better than mine. To this day I am stumped as to how the girls strutted the cloting. We could starve while the Society is enriched. I still feel guilty if I watch Swaggart, Graham, Falwell, etc. They can spend countless thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, supporting Swaggart so Swaggart is enriched.

    Their solution is not principled. It is understandable for a wordly organization. They claim, however, to be the sole organ of Jehovah's will. Their legal advice makes sense to avoid taxation but it is alsp pharisaical. Contribution, donation -- we are on substantial legal nitpicking grounds. They wrote so movingly about the org.'s noncompliance with the nazis, which was not true. Yet they comply with the government. If the GB is the only group, why didn't the GB know the precise formulation.

    This case is interesting, not for the actual legal ruling, but as an example of how hypocritical they are. I noticed as a teenager that their hours for pioneer service completely complied with Selective Service rules regarding draft exemption. It completely correlated. Why 100 hours and not $102? Where is this in the Bible. I imagine that different countries had different pioneer commitment hours.

    I've attended churches and great emphasis is placed on individual spiritual development and cohesiveness of the community. The Witnesses don't seem to care about individual growth. All the focus is on bringing new meat into the fold.

  • Calebs Airplane
    Calebs Airplane

    Where can I get a pdf copy of this Amicus Curiae?

Share this