Might as well give up Broken. You aren't getting through to very many people...
Yeah, I hate it when I'm the smartest one in the room.
No Christian Congregation in Australia according to the Witchtower. HAHAHA
by hamsterbait 47 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
Broken Promises
-
Heartofaboy
Calm down, calm down.............sheeeesh
-
wannabefree
Might as well give up Broken. You aren't getting through to very many people...
The message gets through loud and clear, the question remains, IF there is NO "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" entity in Australia from a strictly legally registered point of view, can it be proven that DESPITE that fact, the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" does exist because it sends letters, signed by "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" to congregations in Australia and the letters are considered to be from the source of governance of the congregation and are to be followed by the elders.
It is obvious how the organization twists and uses double speak and technicalities to "keep the truth from those who do not deserve it".
-
Mad Sweeney
Forget it, wannabefree. The troll and the Broken Promises aren't reading anything anyone else is saying. They only see that the CCJW doesn't formally exist in Oz and they don't care whether it ACTUALLY DOES EXIST for all pracitcal intents and purposes. The corporation isn't registered there so they simply don't care about it. It sends letters to congregations there. It sends letters to the branch there. It orders them all around and they all obey. But it doesn't exist. Nothing to see. No need to discuss it or even concern ourselves with the obvious hypocrisy. It doesn't exist in Victoria so everyone but those two are stupid.
-
Band on the Run
I'm hoping the corporate veil can be pierced! It exists but it does not exist. Corporations typically walk away with fines; judges are reluctant to imprison the corporate officers or attach the officers' personal assets. Also, I was researching the CA non-profit corporate code. Non-profits are typically run by volunteers. To encourage philanthropy, the regulation of non-profits is much more lax than for regular corporations.
I fear individual elders may pay for what they were ordered to do. JW elders in good standing will prob. take the bullet rather than contest they were merely instruments of the WT of Australia. How many elders take a detailed legal responsibility course when they are chosen to serve? The Society may offer one but these aren't men who are going to hire their own lawyers to protect their interests.
-
JeffT
Band, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that in order to pierce the corporate veil, the court has to determine malfeasence by the coporate officers and board, essentially a conspiracy to hide illegal activity behind the veil. The only time I've been involved in such a case, the owner of an LLC was witholding 941 taxes from employees and not sending the money to the IRS.
Does the fact that the WTBS directs all activities irregardless of the names of the corporations involved provide the legal equivelent of an audit trail leading back to Brooklyn?
-
AGuest
If the plaintiffs attorney(s) know about Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick, [2002] HCA 56, they may be able to get the court to recognize and find personal jurisdiction [in a foreign forum], as dear BOTR (peace to you!) pointed out. That case involved the intentional defamation of a foreign (Australian) resident by the Wall Street Journal. There, the court held that the WSJ, who defamed respondent Joseph Gutnick, was subject to jurisdiction in Gutnick's country of Australia, because the Journalavailed themselves to Australian law by defaming a resident there (in Australia).
In the U.S., this is a prong of what we call "minimum contacts"... whereby a foreign (out of state) corporation establishes personal jurisdiction IN the state... by doing business there or availing it self of resources (roads, goods, etc.) there. In the WTBTS case, surely the CCJW has availed itself to Australian law by directing it's underlings, etc., on MANY issues for MANY years. Including to break or not adhere TO the particular law in question there.
I think it's going to come down to how good of an argument the plaintiff makes FOR personal jurisdiction. Given how "good" the WTBTS attorneys are, they have their work cut out for them.
Maybe someone should send them [info about] this case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_%26_Co._Inc._v_Gutnick
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html
Peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
AGuest
Does the fact that the WTBS directs all activities irregardless of the names of the corporations involved provide the legal equivelent of an audit trail leading back to Brooklyn?
I realize you've addressed dear BOTR (again, peace to you!), dear JeffT (peace to you, as well!), but I would like to respond that it COULD... if the court determines that those on the congregation level were acting as AGENTS of Brooklyn. The problem is whether they in fact WERE... or whether they chose to ignore the law on their own... which many, MANY elder bodies DO.
Let me give you an example: there are some dear ones DF'd ones who were locked out of a Memorial event a few years ago... because they partake. Theirs was a very small town... with very small-minded JWs - "WE don't think you're 'anointed' so you will NOT be partaking HERE!" Now, locking someone... who has NO intent to cause harm/disturbance/disrupt proceedings... out of place of worship is in violation not only of the U.S. Constitutional right to freedom of religion... AND the California Constitution to the same... but also against California law (i.e., where, in summary, it is not only a violation of the freedom of religion to prevent any one who does not have the intent to cause harm/a disturbance from entering a place of worship, but also a criminal act that can be prosecuted by the local DA).
This law was enacted in response to anti-abortionists trying to prevent women from entering abortion clinics for services there. To make the whole thing "fair," the law addresses the other side: you can't prevent people from entering such clinics to exercise their right to choose, as well as prevent pro-lifers, etc., from entering their places of worship. Both violate constitutional rights. However, it becames criminal because of the violence some used TO prevent such entry: to clinics AND to churches.
The problem in the dear ones' case, however, is that had they brought suit it might only have been against the local congregation. Why? Because the WTBTS had issued a letter some time before telling local congregations NOT to prevent ANYONE from entering the KHs... unless they were threatening... even DF'd ones. That is their "policy". If there was a problem, they were to call the police and have such persons removed, etc.. So, the WTBTS had already covered THEIR hineys: if elders CHOOSE to disregard the letters, well, they may find themselves on their own. As it could turn out here, depending on the WTBTS' instructions TO the local congregations on this matter.
That is not definitive, of course: while most companies can show what their POLICY is regarding certain matters... they usually also have to show that their agents KNEW of the policy and/or were trained to operate accordingly. So, I'm not sure if a letter to congregation will suffice on that issue. In addition, even if there WAS such a letter, another agent, say, a CO or DO, could have implied different policies. Since they are agents, as well, this could be more definitive.
But this is why elders are usually left standing on their own: THEY don't know how to cover THEIR own butts! They may receive a letter from "Momma Borg"... but they don't have enough education/understanding to understand WHY Momma sent it: to cover HER big wide butt... NOT theirs.
And then you also have the "I'm/we're the one(s) dealing with the congregation on a daily basis so I/we know better'n Brooklyn what should happen down here... and I/we say we're gonna do this!" kind of elder/BOE. The "wolves". They don't give a hang about the sheep... and even less about the law ("Because, well, WE'RE 'Jehovahs' Witnesses' and ain't NO government/court/caesar gonna tell US what to do!"). And so, the "hired man" (GB and their ilk)... leave these to themselves... and the sheep to THEM. In turn, the sheep are snatched and scattered... and then the wolves are mangled themselves... by the "lion" (the systems that belong to the "ruler of this world").
The courts don't care about going against the WTBTS; indeed, the WTBTS has a greater record than ANY other U.S. organization for fighting FOR the freedom of religion. Their record is vast. Who wants to take on that? No reasonable-minded judge. Taking on the little men of the local congregation, though? Who even their "Momma" has now turned on them? Piece of cake.
Unless the plaintiff's can convince the court that (1) it has personal jurisdiction over the WTBTS, (2) the WTBTS was involved... and (3) was NEGLIGENT (along WITH the locals)... nothing's going to come back on THEM (the WTBTS). It'll come back on the locals alone (IF the court finds negligence or violation of the law), perhaps. But not on Momma.
And there it is. It's what happens when you put your trust in earthling man... and "nobles".
I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
Broken Promises
Get real, Mad.
I have stated before that in practical terms, the JWs exist, regardless of what term they want to legally call themselves.
I have been trying to explain things from the court's point of view. You can say all you want in the real world, but from the court's (and the defendant's) point of view, the CCJW does not exist. The WTS does.
They will have to convict the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, not the CCJW. That's the difference in legal terms.
I don't know how more easily I can explain this.
-
rebel8
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
Faithful and Discreet Slave"So just one of the "accused" can be removed because it is non-existant ,"LEGALLY"?
None of them is non-existant. All of them are not legally registered entities in Australia, as I understand it.
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc.
That is an organization in Pennsylvania, United States. Does an Australian court have authority over what happens in Pennsylvania?
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's WitnessesAgain a United States organization--Australian court may have no authority.
Faithful and Discreet SlaveThat is a figurative, symbolic thing, not an organization or person in Australia. Is legal action permitted against a symbol?
So just one of the "accused" can be removed
Maybe all of them can be removed. Perhaps if the plaintiff (or whatever he's called) would have had the opportunity to consult an attorney, this could have been avoided.
I guess what I'm getting at is this is not "getting off on a technicality" or "being dishonest". The truth is this legal action appears to not have named the actual offender. Some things in life are not best done DIY, like lawsuits, brain surgery, and colonoscopies.
Perhaps he couldn't afford it, couldn't get an attorney interested, it isn't allowed by the legal system, or it doesn't matter...I have no idea....I will wait to see what the legal system says.