What is an Amicus Brief

3acrewood

Hi, Waiting, and all others concerned about this Amicus Brief:

Just to set the record straight - I have been a legal secretary for over 20 years, and I assure you there is nothing shady about the Society filing an Amicus Brief in regard to this Swaggart thing. An Amicus Brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit (i.e., other religious organizations, corporations, etc.). In this case, if the Court should find that Jimmy Swaggart's organization should be taxed, then they can apply that ruling to any number of other religious organizations also, including the Watchtower Society. So, by filing this Brief, they are in NO WAY implying that they are in support of or are "friends of" Jimmy Swaggart, nor are they endorsing his organization or beliefs. What it is saying, and ALL it is saying is: WE TOO OBJECT to this lawsuit for all the reasons stated by the defendant's attorneys, as any decision made against Swaggart's organization stands to do great harm to OUR organization as well.

Clear as mud? Hope it helps some.

CJ

3acrewood

P.S. In case, in reading the above, it might be interpreted otherwise, it was intended as a friendly post. You can't read my pleasant smile :) in the words, but it's there. I too find, so far, this forum friendlier and less hostile than ... other forums, and I do hope it stays that way. Much more pleasant to visit! I appreciate all your posts and shared experiences.

I might add just one thing to the above though, and that is that by filing such a Brief, the Society is NOT helping Swaggart in any way. They're just saying "Ditto" to the legal issues raised.

CJ

Friend

3acrewood / CJ

You said:

What it is saying, and ALL it is saying is: WE TOO OBJECT to this lawsuit for all the reasons stated by the defendant's attorneys, as any decision made against Swaggart's organization stands to do great harm to OUR organization as well.

Mostly your representation of a filing amicus curiae is correct. However, that last statement is more than an amicus curiae brief has to represent. You indicated that such a filing objects to a lawsuit (actually a prosecution in this case) for all the reasons stated by a defendants of attorney. Actually amicus curiae can be filed regarding a single legal argument. Also, regardless of legal arguments presented, if an outside party feels that some portion of law is about to be ruled on then they can ask for their relevant legal arguments to be heard, which may be an argument that a defense attorney has not made at all. In short, an amicus curiae brief need not have any connection whatsoever with the pending outcome of a case. In the case of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, the Society’s amicus curiae brief could have been completely successful with JSM loosing the case just the same.

Just for clarification, in the case of JSM the Society only presented arguments on one particular legal issue—of many raised by JSM—that the judge was likely to rule upon. Those arguments were different from those used by JSM attorneys.

From your comments it is clear that you understand that, in this case, much has been made out of nothing.

Friend

3acrewood

You're right, of course, Friend. Even as I typed it, I was thinking that word "ALL" was a poor choice, but guess I got lazy about going back for another edit. :) (Guess I secretly hoped it would slip on by unnoticed - I shoulda known better with this group! LOL) Thanks.

spectromize

What ever happened to not forming alliances with the world especially Babylon the Great. If you two think that no scriptual principles have been broken then why not talk openly about it in your hall and see what happens. I will challenge you and ask you to please give me the name of both your congregations and I will bring to them both your posts and pass it around at the risk of me being disfellowshipped. Do you want to challenge me about your post on Jimmy? I'm ready to pass your posts around and deal with your cong. elders?

We will see how they feel about it.

Friend

spectromize

I don’t know what you are getting so worked up about. In a letter dated February 9, 1990 and addressed to congregation elders the Society first informed elders and ministerial servants of changes resulting from the very issue under discussion here. The same letter gave permission that elders and ministerial servants could speak of its contents, including the parts about the recent (at the time) court rulings.

So, part of the whole point is this, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT OPENLY if you want to. It is no big secret or any sort of a big deal. In fact during the next service meeting (back then) THE ENTIRE CONGREGATION was informed FROM THE PLATFORM of the contents of that letter. Where were you?

Also, pardon me, but your whole notion about forming alliances smacks of ignorance. Go get educated on what an amicus curiae filing really represents before you sling that kind of innuendo, which is a false innuendo BTW.

Friend

waiting

Well, Friend, the letter from the Society to the elders ssaid "they could speak about it if they wished."

Since I stumbled onto this Jimmy Swaggart situation - I have asked several friends in my congregation - one an elder for 20 years, what he thought about it. Either he way lying, or not aware of the Society's letter letter, because he knew nothing about it.

Another pioneer sister didn't know anything about either. Another elder I asked in another congregation, again - was either lying or not aware of the Society's letter.

Could you post that letter so I can show these elders what they did not inform their congregations about? Or, perhaps, they just chose not to make the rank and file aware of this situation. Perhaps the Society and the elders are afraid that the uneducated rank and file would find it offensive that the educated lawyers were doing something that the rank and file have perceived that they were not allowed to do.

And the rank and file might not be happy about the situation. Unless I have the scanned document in front of me, no person I have talked with believes that the Society would do this LEGAL, NOT SHADY, maneuver.

No one has questioned the legality of the Society's move - we question the religious ramifications and the old addage "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

If your argument holds water, not the legal and shady part (I see your point on these matters) why don't Jehovah's Witnesses put their church phone number and addresses in the yellow pages.
The same is true in hotel listings for neighborhood religious organizations.

Surely, the benefits would outweight just posting your name there. The JW's would not, in any way, be agreeing with these members of Babylon the Great. They would be just helping others to find us and also, perhaps, gain new dedicated Christians - which is one of our primary goals.

I truly believe it was religiously unethical, as our channel from Jehovah God and our ONLY teachers of true Bible instruction and enlightenment, to put their name in the Court system for any reason along with another religious entity - especially for taxation and the making of money.

waiting

Dear 3acre and Friend,

I appreciate this forum's freedom of speech - and thank you for expressing your legal opinions. They have as much validity as my daughter's 10 years legal paralegal and court assistant and the attorney she works for 30 years in the Courtroom.

I believe in the arena of law, the Society did no wrong. In the arena of ethics - I do not agree with them - and thankfully - there is freedom to do so - at least in the web.

Please accept my welcome to the area started by Simon - I think most of us call it "our" forum now but he deserves all the technical gratitude.

Frenchy

As an elder I read that letter sent to us about the 'new donation arrangement' that was being instituted. As a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks later we got yet another letter with a few more clarifications. It gave the appearance of some sort of panic move. Just my impression. There was nothing at all in the letters about the brief filed. There was no mention of Jimmy Swaggart in any way. The information that was to be given out to the publishers was what would be coming out shortly in the publications.

Regardless of how you analyze it, the Society did indeed associate itself with the Jimmy Swaggart ministries when it filed that brief. This has come back to haunt them over and over again. You will note that this action was never printed in any of our magazines, was it? Why not? Because the association would be made between the two.

I don't believe that the Society as anything to do with ole' Jimmy but this was an instance of a clear violation of Rev 18:4

And I heard another voice out of heaven say: "Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues.

2 Cor 6:17:

"'Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,' says Jehovah, 'and quit touching the unclean thing'"

3acrewood

Spec: Concerning your post above - something about "taking it to the congregation ...?

There's a line in Joe vs. the Volcano (granted, not Oscar material, but one line in it just jumped out at me when I read your post). Meg Ryan plays multiple roles - one of which is the really ditzy sister. At one point, Meg Ryan's main character is having an exchange with this ditzy sister, who suddeny throws some totally off-the-wall remark at her. Meg stands there looking confused for a minute, her mouth hanging open, and finally all she can say is: I don't know how to respond to that ...

That's exactly how I feel about your post ...

I don't know how to respond to that ...

What is an Amicus Brief

Share this