If you ever Wondered why it is so HARD to Sue WT for being DFed- read this

by JT 31 Replies latest jw friends

  • somebody

    I'm SO mad!

    I just spent about a half hour responding to this post and when I went to post it, I lost it ALL !!!

    I don't know if I even have it in me to start it all over again. but I will say this.....I WISH I WERE A LAWYER DEFENDING A DISFELLOWSHIPPED OR DISASSOCAITED MEMBER OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY CORPORATION/PRINTING BUSINESS ! That whole letter contained nothing but bullshit and their own publications can proove it. Their fancy words mean shit. In plain english. which they would NEVER use.

    I'll TRY and cool off (I think I broke my desk! ) and retype my original post.

    Although this got my blood boiling, I do thank you JT. Thank you for posting the truth about business ethics of a multi-million dollar corporation.


  • hawkaw

    Gee ... Somebody, I hope you are okay now? How are you and my good buddy Zev doing?<p>

    As for JT you said ...

    Hawk makes a very interesting point, i was not aware of canada law allows for that and in such countries as yours folks should GO FOR IT-

    Its not Canadian law. It's common law. And its practiced in Canada and the USA and Britain

    Enough said for now.

    Take care.


  • somebody
    The relation of a member of a congregation to the congregation is consensual as to both parties. A congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is a voluntary association.

    Just this alone is bullshit. Isn't it convenient how the WBTS leave out that they BRIBE "studies" into getting baptized/eligable to be disfellwshipped to begin with by threating them that they no longer have as much as the PRIVILEGE or PRAYER to God if they don't get baptized?

    That is the same as me telling someone to adhere to my rules or God is no longer in their lives, therefore , they will die. And then turning around and saying that they voluntarily adhere to my rules, leaving all mention of the the threat or bribe out. the FACT would be that I used a bribe to influence their decision to adhere to my rules or not. What better higher power is their to use other than death and God?

    Main Entry: [1]bribe
    Pronunciation: 'brIb
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, something stolen, from Middle French, bread given to a beggar
    Date: 15th century
    1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
    2 : something that serves to induce or influence

    Hi hawkaw.

    Your good buddy Zev is doing great! he's a wonderful guy I tell ya! He's Mr. Perfect in my book.

    I'm doing great too, cept I'm upset right now at the games the dirty, grimy printing factory play with people's lives, no matter the cost, nor how many lives they destroy.


  • reubenfine

    Good thread JT and intersting posts by all. I am only a paralegal in the US but my two cents from school and research.............the bottom line is the US Gov't will BEND OVER BACKWARDS to stay out of ANY religious issue, and I do mean ANY. The only exception would have to be a big time crime like pedophilia or of course tax evasion. For someone to sue the WT for being Df'd or Da'd, I believe, would be an impossible case to win. If anyone knows of such a case I would love to see it.

    Maybe covering up pedophilia will cost them some millions. I haven't heard of the progress of the cases that are ongoing. Has anyone here heard anything?

  • MacHislopp

    Hello again JT,

    thanks for the other comments.

    I do like this:

    "When you can make and change the

    rules in the middle of the game like wt

    does all the time." !!!

    Unfortunately very true.

    Btw, it is also true that in Europe there is an increasing

    number of "Disass." instead of "disfellowshiping".

    As you have commented it is easier for the WTBS Inc.

    and takes the " load " away from the '...elders'.

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

    PS. Hi... to hawkaw and Somebody...please cool it down!

  • Black Man
    Black Man

    Once again, JT an excellent-ass post.........good reading.........As long as the baptismal vow is of a voluntary nature, WTS can do whatever they want...unfortunately.

  • JT
    As long as the baptismal vow is of a voluntary nature, WTS can do whatever they want...unfortunately

    words have never been spoken that are more true

  • La Capra
    La Capra

    When I was studying libel, slander, defamation in my torts class it became very clear that this would not be the way to go if one ever wanted to sue the WTBS for announcements made about disfellowshipping. They never say the reason-which may be false, but the reality-the disfellowshipment-which was true. However, if one dissasociated oneself in one congregation and moved away in hopes of being left alone, started a career as a public school teacher in a town a ways away, and 15 years later the congregation in the new town decided to start telling local members (perhaps even announcing it from the platform to all the congregations in the new town, in front of said teacher's students and their parents) that this person was "disfellowshipped" which does imply there was a fact finding method of determining wrongdoing, then there would be grounds for slander, because "disassociation" in no way "infers" the same moral wrongdoing as "disfellowshipping" and would most definitely damage the professional reputation of this person (to her students, and perhaps, if parents yanked the kids from her class, to her principal and colleagues), creating a slander per se situation. If there is slander per se, damages do not have to proven, they are assumed. (I think this may be about to happen to me, because the elders stopped by a few weeks ago saying they had received a letter that I was living in the area and was disfellowshipped. Would love for them to make that announcement, cuz I'm ready to sue their cologne wearing asses off). When I was studying unenforceability in my contracts class, I learned that minority makes a contract voidable (not void) at the minor's pleasure. The letter at the front of this thread could be very damning to the WBTS since it calls the relationship somewhat of a contractual one, the minor has a way out, and would be better off voiding it than disassociating or getting disfellowshipped. I bet a person baptized as a minor could force the WBTS to remove their name from ALL records as having been "baptized" based on this letter from their legal department admitting to the contractual relationship. No punitive damages or legal fees are awarded in contractual disputes, though. I think there are probably some cases out there for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, though, particularly in some of the molestation situations in which the victim and family were punished. However, statute of limitations is pretty short for this sort of thing. By the way, the letter was a mini "brief", and since the lawyer would expect another lawyer to fact check on the precedents, it's not likely that the cases have been overruled or are misquoted. He could be disbarred, for malpractice, if they were. Shoshana

  • garybuss

    They welcome people to join them with a smile and a handshake into a loving religion but if there is a problem those same people are met at the door by a hard core publishing business with intimidating lawyers and reams of case law and the love and friendship is gone like the fading ink on the pages of out of date literature. . . It really is easy to see. They are a business, you are unpaid employees. They have the money, you have none. They have the power you gave them and they will keep it until you take it back. When will you do that?

  • reporter
    those same people are met at the door by a hard core publishing business with intimidating lawyers and reams of case law

    The kicker is, is that the WTS freely uses intimidating lawyers and rheams of case law to get its own way with the courts, however, when the courts order something, injunct, or overrule them, then they spirit children out of hospitals, hide or obfuscate records, and obstruct justice so badly it would have made Clinton seem angelic.

    After all, when the courts agree with them, then it's a theocratic "tool" they're using to sanctify "Jehovah's name", if the courts rule against them, then it's Satan's old worldly "system of things" conspiring against them.

Share this