The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

by WingCommander 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  Does anyone know what law he is accused of breaking? Are there precedents one way or another about Zoom meetings? If attending Zoom meetings you’re not “supposed” to be at is criminal then there should surely be lots of cases involving it. But in this case it seems like they regret allowing him into the meeting, which sounds weaker still. They should have thought about that when they were admitting people to the meeting.

  If somebody held a physical meeting that they considered sensitive and carelessly left a door open, is a journalist breaking the law by listening at the door? This is what it seems like to me but I have only read a bit.
• 

  joey jojo

  Does anyone know what law he is accused of breaking

  This is just about making examples and setting precedents for the WT. As for the actual law, its not legal to record a meeting without the consent of the other parties. Thats why organisations ask you for permission to record the telephone call if you are speaking to them.

  If video calls are being recorded, most times the host will let everyone know in case anyone has an issue with it.
• 

  KIMSILVIO

  I hate WT and specifically their legal department. I also make no bones about Mark and my issues. I have read the available documents and can see points for Mark and I can see issues that he needs to deal with. It’s a complex issue and I will wait for the trial so all the facts and evidence can be presented.
  I do not think it’s a case of WT going after Mark to shut him up. I think they are taking advantage of an opportunity that presented itself to them.
  
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  I see, he recorded the meeting. That makes sense as a basis for legal action. He should have known not to do that, or at least not to publicise that he had recorded it.
• 

  KIMSILVIO

  According to the documents he was invited by a person who was invited to the meeting. There will be fine print in emails to consider, or a lack of fine print etc. There are so many things that need to be considered by the court.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sometimes politicians get caught in recordings at private events which are publicised in the media. I don’t know the legality of that but Austrian politicians, for example, have lost their position because of damning comments made in private that were recorded without their knowledge. Was the person doing the recording also prosecuted in those cases? Or is a politician who makes damning comments in private fair game whereas ordinary people deserve privacy. It’s different countries and different laws too. I don’t know what the law is here. On the one hand it seems reasonable that people have a right not to have their private conversations recorded. On the other hand if it uncovers illegality or serious hypocrisy that others should know about is there a justification for it? I don’t know the answer, I’m just trying to understand the issues involved.
• 

  KIMSILVIO

  On the one hand it seems reasonable that people have a right not to have their private conversations recorded. On the other hand if it uncovers illegality or serious hypocrisy that others should know about is there a justification for it?

  You seem to understand the question quite well 👍 WT say that he was not a “party” to the meeting as he was not invited, they didn’t know he was there etc and therefore did not waive legal privilege (the meeting was with two attorneys and elders from each of the 11 congregations) and did not consent to him recording. They claim that both parties had to consent to recording as required by the relevant USA law. They claim that he shared information on a YouTube video that could only have been learnt from that meeting.

  Mark contends that he was invited therefore hasn’t done anything wrong. He contends that he isn’t subject to the two party consent law they referenced. He also contends that most of the information that he shared was learnt prior to the meeting. Some of this section is redacted so it’s hard to understand what was known and what wasn’t.

  My personal opinion: if someone recorded the meeting and gave it to him as a journalist and he reported on it, this claim would have been complete bs.

  If a person breaks the law to obtain information that is reported publicly, I think it’s wrong as it gives scumbags like WT the ability to “sing from the rooftops” if they win.

  I will be interested to see what the court determines. I hope the court rules against WT, but we shall have to wait and see.
• 

  KIMSILVIO

  private events which are publicised in the media

  Most countries have laws that identify where a person reasonably can expect to have privacy (ie in their own homes, public restrooms, doctors offices, lawyers, medical providers etc). If a private event is held in a public place, a person could lose their “reasonable expectation of privacy”. 👍
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Doesn't look good for Mark. It would have been far safer legally if he had simply interviewed the person who invited him to the meeting, rather than attending it himself. Had he done that:

  1. He likely wouldn’t have violated any wiretap or privacy laws.

  2. As a journalist, he would have been protected by shield laws and wouldn’t have been compelled to disclose his source.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Journalists have been known to do what Mark claims he did (or even worse). Difference is that the media outlet they are employed by gets sued and there’s some sort of settlement that is paid out to make the case go away. The publicity alone was worth that. The perfect crime. WT knows this will break him even in the event this gets tossed. This is why “freelance” Scientology bloggers and activists need to be very careful as to what they are getting involved in. No exJW gofundme as Redditors are suggesting is going to raise $150K or whatever Mark says his legal fees (so far) are. Not even his former mentor was capable of raising that kind of cash on the fly. This can go on for years.

  Yes, I know “WT bad, Mark good” but the laws still apply. I hope for his sake Mark gets out of this and his legal representation advises him correctly on what issues he’s safe on and where he’s potentially liable. And should it become clear the WT has a case, I hope he puts his animosity for the WT aside and looks for the best way out of this.

  Sometimes it’s better to be more practical than right. This lawsuit is the last thing someone nearing retirement age needs. Nothing is worth spending the rest of your life in poverty and dodging creditors for a ridiculous sum you can never pay.