Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) seems to have a new member. The Jehovah’s Witnesses AKA the Watchtower.
The membership list does not seem to be public, but I am sure that with enough inquiries from the public -that clog the arteries of their email server- we can get at the truth.
Just like the Watchtower affiliation with the UN, it seems now the Watchtower has affiliated with trinitarians.
The CLF brings legal action on behalf of the tower.
To be a member with the CLF, the Watchtower... "must be able and willing to sign the statement of faith...."
See item 2 of the CLF "statement of faith"
2 "There is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
Contact Christian Legal Fellowship today and inquire if Watchtower is a member.
Remember, we didn’t get the truth out of the United Nations concerning Watchtower affiliation until their email box was overflowing.
Watchtower spent 100 years bashing Christendom... now it turns to Christendom for aid.
Please email CLF and remember to send a quote from a Watchtower article concerning the lovely trinity.
You do understand how interveners in Canada and friend of the court (forget how to spell the Latin term) in the US work. These are entities that don't have any actual standing in a case but have an interest in their own right, and they want to be heard by the court. They file a petition with the court to give them the right to be heard in the matter. They don't have any connection with any of the actual parties of the case.
In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to this however (for example, under subrule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question then the attorney general of any province or territory, or of the federal government, may intervene "as of right", i.e. without the need to be granted leave to intervene).
Courts will tend to allow an application to intervene if the applicant will provide a different perspective on the issues before the court, without expanding those issues.
Intervenors are permitted in criminal matters as well as civil matters. However, courts sometimes express concern in allowing applications for intervention in criminal matters where the applicant will make arguments against the position of the accused. It sometimes is seen as unfair that the accused in a criminal matter be required to meet arguments from sources other than the prosecution.
There are several distinct reasons why someone might wish to intervene in a proceeding:
- if the proposed intervenor is currently a litigant in a case with legal issues similar or identical to the case at hand;
- if the proposed intervenor represents a group of people who have a direct concern in the legal issues raised in a case (for example, if the case involves deportation of a particular individual, an application for leave to intervene might be made by an interest group for the rights of refugee claimants);
- if the proposed intervenor is concerned that the court's decision in a particular case might be so broad as to affect the proposed intervenor's interests; in other words it would be an intervention to ensure that the court's ruling does not have "accidental" unintended effects.
It is often said that the role of intervenors is to "assist" the court in making a just decision on the dispute at hand. While it is true that judges sometimes do indicate that intervenors have been of aid to the court in reaching a decision, the use of the word "assist" can be seen as misleading in that it implies the intervenor is acting altruistically. In general, the goal of the intervenor is to influence the court in making its decision, not just to "assist" the court.
Canadian courts (also courts in UK) use the term "amicus curiae" in a more limited sense. Generally, in Canada, an amicus curiae is someone who has been specifically commissioned by the court to provide a viewpoint which the court believes is necessary and otherwise lacking. By contrast, an intervenor is someone who has applied to the court to be heard on a matter. For example, the Quebec Secession Reference (a case in the Supreme Court of Canada) had one amicus curiae and several intervenors
It's true that an amicus may be at play, but that doesn't get Watchtower off the hook.
Just as in the case when Jimmy Swaggart was getting raked over in court because he was selling literature, the Watchtower signed an amicus. How could watchtower be "a friend" to Jimmy Swaggart, and now, all religions. Go look at the list of the religions involved. All loving bedfellows.
I believe the chances are high that Watchtower joined the christianlegalfellowship
In any case, this is not the same. Christianlegalfellowship is bringing the action. This is not Jimmy defending himself, and Watchtower throwing in their lot. This is an entity aligning many faiths and bringing action on behalf of Watchtower.
There is a big fat DONATE page over there. I will bet the Tower gave a chunk.
When someone files an amicus curiae, they are not filing it to be the "friend of a party" but they are filing it to be the "friend of the court". If you actually read watchtower brief in the Jimmy Swagger case they don't make reference to that ministry till the last page and when they did it was in passing. The purpose of the brief was to give a different prospective to the court.
Just look at watchtower v Stratton there were some 25 amicus curiae briefs field with the court including from the ACLU, Gun Owners of America and the Center of Individual Freedoms. Does that mean that all 25 of those organizations are in bed with each other. Or was it that they all had an interest in the case and wanted the court to hear their argument on the case.
- John Davis9 hours ago9 hours ago9 hours ago9 hours ago9 hours ago
- You do understand how ...
It would be good to refrain from wording designed to diminish others for the purpose of elevating oneself.
Yes, I do understand how things work. Do you understand?
When you show up to court to present arguments in favor of a litigant, for the most obvious reason of similar self interest, you crawl in bed with them. One can use various legal instruments to do so, but it does not change the facts of what is taking place.
When the WTBTS showed up at Jimmy Swaggert’s court case, to be a “friend of the court”, they were not there because of some overwhelming concern for the court, and their ‘friendly help’ was not helpful to the court, it was rather in support of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries.
Swaggart lost. Hence, Watchtower lost. And when Watchtower got back to 25 Columbia Heights, they immediately began to draft the letter that was read at all Kingdom Halls... that the literature was now “at no cost”
But mr Davis, you would have everyone believe I don’t know what I’m talking about... and of course YOU DO.
In the case at hand, there has been a rallying cry that has brought all these people together. I want to know the full extent of it. Just like I wanted to know the extent of the WTBTS involvement with the UN.
In the case of the UN affiliation, the WTBTS had to fill out an application and they had to submit articles for review and they had to “agree to the principles of the UN Charter”. They did so in spades. The revelation of this has had them on the run until today. People are still leaving Watchtower because of it.
Win or lose, in the present case, people will not stay WT or go and be free based on the outcome. I hope WT loses, and all the freaking religions with them. I hope that the Canadian courts get a head start on the Watchtower prophecy that God “will put it in their hearts” to dispose of it. Good riddance.
What this post is about is, other churches are involved now. How did this get to be the case? That’s the question I want answered. And the answer, my friend, will be a reason for people to go and be free.
Please, less ‘I’m the king of understanding‘ and more action.
email Christian legal fellowship today and ask for the members list.
Lastman, while i see what you are driving at, its a tenuious thread at best.
Lets look at the case if jimmy swaggert. The wt filed “ “amicus curiae”, which definition is found here :https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amicus%20curiae#legalDictionary. It did not mean then or now that the wt was a “friend” of jimmy swaggert, rather, legally they had common interests. Its also noteworthy that jimmy didn’t ask the wt to file said brief nor did the wt offer on his behalf. It was offered on behalf of the wt’s position.
Amicus Curiae is a process where a person or entity can comment on a case if they believe the ruling in said case will have an impact on that person or entities interests. In short, the wt knew an unfavorable ruing against swaggert would directly impact them and filed their brief. The brief didnt make the wt and jimmy swaggert ministries friends, allies, business partners or even cousins.
This situation you cite is exactly the same. This organization is exercising their legal right to comment to the court on a case that they believe will have an impact on their organization if an unfavorable ruling is handed down to the wt. It dosent imply or establish any sort of relationship between the parties beyond a common legal standing, in this case organized religions.
I don't know what you know and what you don't know, so that is why I worded bit the way I did. And I understand that you are making the innuendo that because other churches filled interveners that they are all colluding together and that where applicable watchtower is a member associated with them.
But u also are making an accusation with no evidence. You make the accusation and then hope that there is evidence to back it up.
John Davis4 hours ago4 hours ago
... I understand that you are making the innuendo that because other churches filled interveners...But u also are making an accusation with no evidence...
The accusation was made over 15 years ago, that the WTBTS was an affiliate with the UN. Because people hammered on that door en masse, the UN made the evidence available. I am calling for the same here based on the available evidence.
I have made, not an accusation, but rather an observation that WTBTS is a hypocrite. I don't have to prove that again. Once a hypocrite, always a hypocrite. It was plastered in the Guardian in big letters. Hypocrite Religion...
The Watchtower MUST practice hypocrisy. It is the only way it can operate because it is a scheming Machiavellian devil. I am suggesting that the Watchtower crawled in bed with christianlegalfellowship and that is where this is stemming from.
Their members list is not public, so far as I can see. But we have proof that the WTBTS has crawled in bed with others. And quite frankly, Watchtower and Jimmy Swaggart were practising the same garbage, selling religion. In my opinion, they are in the same bed through conduct. Once they appeared in a courtroom together, fighting for the same thing.. to be able to continue to fleece people with their refuse, they share the same STD's.
There's the law. Then there's the spirit of the law. I have read of individuals who's lawyers made the same kinds of arguments... we really didn't do insider trading because... And Martha Stewart still went to jail.
I don't like to mince words. We all know what they are. Scheming lying b tards. And we have even seen Gnam lie his arse off already.
Morpheus, thanks for the post. Yes, I know the score.
Tell me, did WTBTS get involved with Jimmy because they felt, "hey.. this guy is getting picked on and he has the right to preach his message"..?
Did Watchtower feel some overwhelming responsibility to ensure Jimmy could continue to sell his very valuable spiritual insight?
Doesn't Watchtower preach against all other religions, that they are all from the devil? Wouldn't Jimmy be getting what he deserved, if the court stopped him from selling his junk?
Didn't I read two instances where the Awake magazine mentioned Jimmy Swaggart, by name, and condemn him?
How is it not hypocrisy to help him in any way?