Just Throwing Out The Idea Of A Class Action Suit Against The Watch Tower Corporations

by frankiespeakin 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  frankiespeakin

  I think now that the Governing Body is in this big power grab in order to stay alive as an entity, thus tighten control, the more controling the more they open themselves up to legal consequences.

  Blood Tranfusion forbiden by a authoritarian religous corporation.

  Disfellowshipping enforcement that brought pain and suffering thousands I'm sure these type of lawsuits could break them but I'm not well versed in law so I thought I would thow this out for discussion.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action

  In law , a class action, a class suit, or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. Class actions are commonly referred to as class action suits; however, this phrase is redundant as the historical distinction between "actions" at law and "suits" in equity is no longer recognized. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon. However, in several European countries with civil law , as opposed to the Anglo-American common law system, changes have been made in recent years that allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of large groups of consumers.
• 

  LostGeneration

  The problem in the US is that its nearly impossible to overcome the 1st amendment, freedom exercise clause.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

  Also, religion is not a consumer product.

  Cult prevention is the cure.
• 

  GonzoX

  If you could prove they were a cult and not a religion would the 1st amendment still hold true?
• 

  Finkelstein

  Its been spoken about before but here's the catch .

  A religious organization can not be held accountable for diverse consequences upon people who are functioning members of that organization itself.

  It may be held accountable though for actions upon people who are not of the religious organization.

  Being that the blood issue as a part of the JWS core doctrines, you'd probably have little chance upon that.

  Where there may be some leeway is the DFing issue, because of religious choice within a family situation,

  because of one individual voluntarily decided they wanted to join another religion but the JW religion tells the remaining

  family that they are to break off associating with the one whose left and moved on.

  This dissolving and destruction of family relationships could perhaps if presented in court show provable pain and suffering caused by the WTS.

  and its established doctrines.

  It must be membered that most other religious organizations do not have structured shunning polices imposed upon

  individual family members. Religious freedom can be used as a whole as a group association or it can also be implied toward individuals as well.

  One religion shouldn't have the capability or power to instruct shunning by virtue of what religion each member chooses

  or not chooses, ever more so set within immediate families. This sort of sides with personal civil liberties as well.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I'm thinking scociety is changing and religions are having to pay up where they are neglecting thier fudiciary duties.

  http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bclawr/44_4/07_TXT.htm

  Abstract: Although the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of religious institutions, it confers no general immunity from liability for their contracts and torts. This Article’s study of the case law indicates that claims may be stated against religious institutions if those institutions had the corporate power or ecclesiastical responsibility for the specific matter in dispute, or had themselves taken action in the matter. A general assertion of the potential to take action or potential to control is insufficient to result in a claim against the institution. Liability would reside, if at all, in the entity that has both the juridic power (under the religious polity) and the civil duty to answer for the actions of persons or other entities in the religious structure. Departure from these principles could result in an unconstitutional exercise by a court. This Article then applies these principles in a critique of tort liability asserted against religious institutions.

  For religious organizations there is another concern: that they might be held responsible for the conduct of a member, employee, or agent, or even the conduct of another related group or its members, employees, or agents, including volunteers. Religious organizations are sometimes very complex organisms. The largest consist of relations among tens of thousands of local churches, hundreds of regional judicatories, and millions of adherents bound together not by a contract of law but the bonds of a common commitment in faith. They relate to each other and to national and international religious bodies according to the dictates of religious principles and doctrines, sometimes millennia old. It is most certainly not General Motors or IBM. Even the smallest church bodies, a single church structure governed by a group chosen by the faithful, who call a pastor and follow what they hear as the Lord’s voice, is not analogous to a neighborhood business. Indeed, analogies to the corporate world fail to capture the nature of religious institutions in the United States. Yet, the dawn of the twenty-first century witnesses the continuation of the litigation explosion of the last century, an explosion in which religious institutions have routinely been made defendants in various actions. The difficulty comes in identifying which entity properly is the defendant and on what bases claims might lie against it.
• 

  karter

  Frankiespeakin,

  Good luck but the 1st amendment gets rite in your way here.

  Lets face it organizations with way more wacky idears opperate with the full protection of the 1st IE the "KKK" "Man boy love association" and many more.

  All the WTS would say is you knew the rules when you became a JW.

  Appart from the fact that the courts don't like geting involved in these things.

  Finkeistein,

  I respecitfully disagree with you on the shunning polices the "Exclusive breatheren" "Armish" and quite a few other religions have the same polices as the JW's

  Karter.
• 

  fakesmile

  im in. for disuading me from higher education... which=neglegence of a minor, for breach of verbal contract, discrimination, etc.
• 

  LV101

  I try to figure this out myself w/all the 1st amendment and rights/privileges of scam religion like w/tower. It just doesn't make sense what they get away with --- where's the rights of the individual. I've discussed this with lawyer(s) and same comments every time -- the courts don't want to deal with religion/constitution/amendment because it's the countries biggee and foundation and lawyers are brainwashed and think it's all choice and if you don't like a particular brand no one is holding a gun to your head making you stay. It drives me crazy because people don't know.

  I think there needs to be a class action suit --- for publicity or something to make waves. There's always a hungry, unsuccessful, lawyer out there someplace that will take a case on -- so the lawyers say, and I think it's worth a try. Ever read some of those unbelievable cases (that crazy email that goes around) responsible lawyers won't touch they seem so bizarre but one takes a gamble and wins big time. It would be such an interesting project for many of us and since it'd be class action wouldn't cost anyone much.
• 

  LV101

  From the posts re the recent elders meeting sounds like someone is suing them --- can't all be pedophile lawsuits.
• 

  fakesmile

  LV101, MONEY=JUSTICE. unfourtunatley they have more $$$ than you or I.