Important to put in your letter of DA (page 3)

Alfred

Excellent letter... thanks for sharing...

I do have to ask though... did they at any time anounce: "Roberta is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." ?

How would you know if you're not there?... Just saying....

Listener

Great to hear the money went to good use.

Aussie Oz

That was an excellent letter Roberta, really good of you to share it.

almost makes me wish is i was DA instead of DF!

oz

shepherd

The local body decided not to name you, but I doubt that announcing "... is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" amounts to defamation and it would probably fail in court.

What your BIL did was different, that was defamation. To be fair to the JW's he was removed for it, but it is likely that was accelerated because of your legal letters.

truthseeker1969

Since when has it been a federal offence?

Defamation is a civil matter with a large burden of proof infact four areas have to be covered for it to be so.

That is how they get away with making statements and why they changed them and why now it seems they are re-considering doing those 'warning talks" when someone is disfellowshipped as it could bite them on the bum should ti be discovered that they were innocent after all.

It just amazes me that you could sue the WTBS and the Kingdom Hall and your brother in law when it was never announced and for you never to have been in a court room. In order to establish guilt and to get a settlement you would have to have been there unless they decided to settle out of court which is highly unlikely as they have per previous court rulings the right to state that so and so is not one of Jehovahs witnesses and that right is compounded if you openly write and state that you are DA.

If your son was 4 when you wrote it how was he 13 seven years later and just a thought, writing here that your BIL is an alcoholic and abusive to children is LIBEL.

If your BIL said things to your son and you as you say told him that we all make mistakes then you have admitted that what he said is factual not slanderous and therfore no court would admit it. I can assure you that the watchtower lawyers would never agree to a settlement as they are not considered party in this case as it was not in his capacity as an elder he said it.

Hmmm. something doesn't sound right here at all.

shepherd

Truthseeker you seem to have gotten into quite a muddle. Perhaps you need to read it all again.

"Since when has it been a federal offence? Defamation is a civil matter" - No comment was made that this was a federal offence or a civil action.

"It just amazes me that you could sue the WTBS and the Kingdom Hall and your brother in law when it was never announced" - the legal action was not about the announcement etc. it was based on a conversation the BIL had with her son years later.

"writing here that your BIL is an alcoholic and abusive to children is LIBEL." - no it is not, because he is not named and since the reader has no way of knowing who 'Roberta804' is, no libelous act was commited.

She writes: "Well he took my 13 year old son aside and proceeded to tell him what a wicked mother I was because of things I had done in my past. My son asked me if all this was true and I explained to him we all do things we later regret. It was several months that went by and I heard the same thing from a girlfriend of mine whose family were JW. I went back to our attorney told him what happened. Together we fired off a letter to the WBTS, cc to CO and to the local KH and then he filed suit based on defamation of character."

You write: "If your BIL said things to your son and you as you say told him that we all make mistakes then you have admitted that what he said is factual not slanderous and therfore no court would admit it."

Maybe you need to use a dictionary. She was not accusing them of slander but for defamation. Something does not have to be untrue to be defamation of character if it is repeated to another with the intent to defame them. In this case the BIL was also an elder and could be recognised as a representative of the JW's. This matter was likely settled out of court not because the WT would have lost the case, but because it was not worth it to them to defend it in court with the respective costs involved and the negative publicity it would likely generate.

"something doesn't sound right here at all" - or maybe you just could not follow along.

truthseeker1969

actually read her lawyers letter and yes he mentions it being a federal matter does't have to be an action.

you do not have to be named but enough information available that by implication it shows it to be you

in a cout of law under oath a person when asked if another person confirmed that the information they gave which is in evidence is true state that it is and was confirmed true case over

slander and defamation in court are the same as they are oral libel is written

not a chance this would go to court and if it did she would have to be there and she states not a day in court.

so no thanks for the dictionary it really doesnt seem right here at all and yup i did folow along perhaps if you read her lawyers letter you would see that.

Roberta804

Alfred,

No neither my husband or myself were ever announced publicy. How do I know? I still have family that are JWs.

Truthseeker: I certainly do not know all the intricate things about law..but I do know that attorneys are known to put more fear in their letters than need be. However the point of my sharing this has to do with the actually writing of a DA letter....to leave all the scriptural stuff out of it and making them play by the rules of law instead of playing a pretend court at the Kingdom Hall. For me and my husband this worked, and when we did file suit we settled out of court. Oh there were other letters from our attorney during the 8 months we went back and forth on the "sum", but WBTS knew that defamation and child abuse could not win in court.

3dogs1husband

love this!!!! need to book mark it! ty Roberta

diamondiiz

Welcome Roberta804,

Nice to see it worked for you. As the DA letter stopped the names from being publicly mentioned it didn't stop the WTS BS from spreading and that needed to be stopped through legal means. While personally, some of us don't care if our names were or are read aloud at the KH, we do care not to be slandered afterwards. The question I have is, would it be more difficult to sue for slander had your names been read aloud due to DA letter? I personally don't think it would be as long as you had enough evidence to support your defamation claim which you obviously also needed to successfully sue for defamation. I would like to hear your or others opinions on this.

Important to put in your letter of DA

Share this