Legal Question: How Strong is Barbara's Case? (page 5)

one

Serious sins:

no covering her head

no consulting her husband, women must not talk, do any questioning.

questioning the "slave"

did she took any wt documents, photocoies?, stealing

they could apply any new rule, even retroactively, like they did to Ray Franz.

Outside the religious context her case would be GOOD case but.

Of course there is a line to be drawn somewhere.

CAN A RELIGION physically KILL A MEMBER? wny not?

Can a religion kill a member morally, economically, professionally?

Constitution. Normally no one, not even a policeman, can restraint/detain you for any lenght of time without a court order.

But is restriction possible only by seising/holding a person physically?

:Now I am humbly requesting people to quit saying this is an easy case to win or Barb's got a really good case unless you have some outstanding piece of case law or statutory law or other evidence that you can reference that I am aware not of.

How do you think the first piece of precedent-setting case law happens? Certainly not by applying other non-existent case law. This COULD become case law itself. Just how far can a religion go towards destroying the reputation of innocent people with lies? That is exactly what the Watchtower Printing Corporation has done to the Pandelos, Barbara, and maybe even Bill Bowen.

There are always many possibilities and many precedents for precedents, if you know what I mean. Case law has to get established somewhere. It doesn't happen in a void.

Farkel

Pathofthorns

I doubt opportunities come around very often that show this measure of promise in suing the WT. While the odds might still be on the slim side, Barbara seems like she could certainly give them a run for their money.

Let's face it, few exJWs suing the Society have the depth of understanding she does, few have even a legitimate issue to be suing over and few of us have the measure of composure she does. As was mentioned earlier on, even if she loses, she will have done much to expose the WT's underhanded tactics.

I think the first thing Barbara needs is a written explanation of what "sins" she has committed and their definition of those "sins" and the evidence they have to support their allegations. Given the amount of time this woman has invested in this group, it would certainly look very unreasonable and suspicious if the WT refused to explain why they are taking such harsh action without explaining why. Even active JWs might wonder why the Society would refuse to explain what someone has done "wrong", especially if they are claiming they want to "help" them.

Path

hawkaw

Farkel,

It is always a pleasure and honour to read your posts.

However the words "non sequitur" come to mind when I read your last post.

All I am saying is tone down "this is an easy case to win stuff". I base it on past cases such as the case in Maine and what Mad Apostate and any good lawyer will tell you wrt to a defamation case. I also know as someone who has been involved in fraud and "false information" cases all the little loop holes defendants can use to get away with these things.

You know that I would love to see the laws change so that all corporations including the WTS would have to adhere to at least the same minimum standards as what the government has too. Hurting people and labelling people just aint right.

Sure I would like her to kick a$$ and I'm even trying to add my 2 cents every now and then, but, I know this is going to be a difficult and long case even before it has a chance of going to trial.

Quite frankly, the case law has been established in the courts wrt this issue of character. The question is .... does she have a potential case that can least get to trial? And quite frankly it's not a slam dunk by any stretch.

hawk

Edited by - hawkaw on 13 June 2002 15:51:23

Fredhall

There is no case!

hillary_step

So speaks the Perry Mason of JW.COM.

HS

one

Dedication

$$$

and a GOOD lawyer will do it

BTW

WT is being supported, resting on a legal Dept., inside lawyers.

go to their jugular, moral and legally

Dutchie

Hawk/Mad Apostate, what if you forgot the fraud and false information and just sued them for damages. She sustained damages because they used their rules and regulations to harm her, to "get" her as it were. As a result of their actions, she is now psychologically damaged and she has proof of that in the form of medical reports, where she specifically mentions that she is now in emotional turmoil because of the way she was treated by the organization. Let us not forget that this was not a normal disfellowshipping but came about on orders from the top. Now, it comes down to their proving she did something that warranted that she be disfellowshipped. You know, the more I think about it, the more I can see a real case.

metatron

If the Legal Dept. has to work day and night, they can get tired like anyone else. I understand

from rumors that this can happen. If you have x number of lawyers doing y number of cases,

eventually they can be swamped. I also assert that the handling of Dateline was very

amateurish and inept - although it may have reflected demands outside of the Legal Dept.

metatron

og

I agree with Alan & Farkel, this is a winnable case - but I differ from them on one point. I don't think libel is the weak point. I think this case is very like the recent successful lawsuits against tobacco companies and should be treated as such. Think about it. There is 1) a long history of people damage or killed (blood transfusion issues) 2) evidence of coverup (admittedly sparse, but real, and a couple of leaked memos would do wonders) 3) a wealthy target, liable to class action lawsuits, that suddenly appears to have real chinks in it's armor.

There are a lot of lawyers thoroughly schooled in the tobacco successes. They are looking for new targets, and the WS is looking soft and fat all of a sudden.

Anyone agree with me?

Legal Question: How Strong is Barbara's Case?

Share this