File lawsuit or not? (page 2)

stephenw20

TR,
there is no question this was not a moral thing that was done. In the WTBTS case , many times the end justifies the means.

THE UNITY factor is what it is about.
BUTBUTBUT BUTBUT
the same laws the wtbts has fought for, are applicable to more than just they who fought ..... they can't hide behind it.

On the back of the New Watchtower its announcing the new campaign about TRUTH and who speaks the truth........it will be the theme of the Disrtict Convention.( I wont go into the turthfulness debate as its been done so many times)

My question is this

NON profit or not, THey are SELLING an idea of TRUTH, it is PUBLISHED as FACT. Yet in the court of law they have testified that their organization does not exist on TRUTH, as it is changing from time to time. It is based on UNITY.

IS this not FRAUD. Cannot a lawsuit be filed on this basis.

You buy a car based on a companies reputation, you invest in a company for the same reason . Their is no DISCALIMER in this case,(joining this group) like in a stock transaction. Yet the investment can be argued is much greater than money, though money is most certainly involved.

any thoughts?

S

TR

Wow. I can really make the feces hit the fan on this one, if I wanted to. Of course I'll not be standing in front of the fan like Fred Hall would.

This is some pretty serious stuff. How can I prove she did it? Would there be some computer record of her entering my account info? I wish I had been recording her phone call. Maybe I can call her myself and get her to admit it again while recording the conversation. Also, I could call the "brother" that called me and ask him where he got my phone number.

Hmmmm....Somehow, I would like to make the link to the WTS obvious. Morris Dees, the famous lawyer from the southern poverty law center, helped bankrupt the Aryan Nations in my area because some drunk neo-nazis harassed some people near their compound. Granted, the neo-nazis case was a little more violent. They were a small group, with little resources, but hey, the WTS has bucks. Lawsuits like this with famous lawyers get nationwide attention.

TR

trevor

TR,
I wouldn't let anyone twang my G string like that. Go and see her
and hit her with your guitar.

unanswered

TR-if i was in your situation, i would definitely be p****d off! one person getting your number through shady means is very annoying, but at least it could be understood if she did it because she was truly concerned. taking it a step further and giving the number to someone else kind of blows that "truly concerned" idea out of the water, though. i think witnesses actually believe that non-witnesses don't have the same rights as they do, ie, privacy, right to opinion, etc. how sad.

it's funny though, because how would witnesses feel if apostates got numbers of people from their old khs and started calling them up and telling them how wrong witnesses are? they would obviously be outraged. might even inspire a new watchtower study article.:) just one more classic example of jws thinking they are somehow better than everyone else. i think the letter is a great idea, if nothing else, just to give a few diserving people a good scare! hope you don't have to be subjected to anymore "sheperding calls", TR.-nate

larc

TR,

You can get the phone numbers you received from her and the other person from your local phone company. After that docuementation, I don't think you need further proof. This isn't a trial where you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. I seems to me that if you simply restate what she said to you, that would be sufficient in a letter to really stir things up for her. However, you definitely need to consult an attorney to determine what and how to say it so that you are not sued for defamation of character.

mustang

larc is right on his thoughts. A CAREFULLY worded INQUIRY would start an investigation that would soon take a life of it's own.
Get it "weasel-worded" to protect yourself, though.

This is all getting into the heavy subject of Church Law. Much as previous incarnation's of Rutherford era Dubs hated and threw stones at the good old Romans of the Catholic persausion, they just keep getting more and more like them: recent re-org w/ an "order", adopting "vows of poverty" to bring the bookkeeping and taxes in line w/ government requirements and the adaptation of an international uniform.

Mustang
disclaimer continued from previous thread entry...

Tina

Hi Tr,
Interesting topic. Thanks for posting it. I've often wondered about this. Interesting responses too,thanks all. regards,Tina

outnfree

Sorry, TR, off topic, but, Mustang:

There's an "international uniform? You mean like a religious order wears? Please fill us in. I missed that somehow.

Thanks.

outnfree

TR

larc,

I was wondering about how to prove how she got my phone number. To just claim that she admitted she stole it from my confidential records might not be enough. Maybe I would have to prove that she was looking at my info or she at least has access to my info. She admitted she looked at my info, but if she were to lie about telling me, where would I go from there?

Also, I need to find out if recording a conversation unbeknownst to the other party is legal in Wa. state.
Methinks I'llk seek out a lawyer familiar with breech of confidentiality cases.

TR

mustang

Outnfree:

Yes there is a uniform. It has been remarked that Dubs ALWAYS wear the western business suit, complete w/ tie. I grew up doing this & still have a closet full of them. I've seen slacks, white shirt, tie w/o a suit coat/jacket in warm weather. But it's generally the whole enchilada, unless it's stiffling.

Several have noted that 'national costume' is not accepted in the backs of magazines and probably in real life. This includes such places as Africa where the three-piece suit is NOT INDIGENOUS.

So, yes, I posit that they have a uniform, much as an RC priest does.

TR:

recording phone calls normally requires the 'warning beep': a tone repeated every 12 seconds. There is a mix of state & Federal codes on this one. Something that is much better is to have a 'supervised' call. Have someone listen on a third phone set & take dictation. Remove the mouthpiece, so that no extraneous noises occur. I've never seen this one attacked. That's probably because it's not a common technique.

Mustang

Disclaimer: nothing that I write or utter is to be considered legal advice. Consult proper counsel for such matters. Further, all that I write or utter, is considered to be protected by religious freedom under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the "free exercise", as well as "freedom of speech" clauses.

File lawsuit or not?

Share this