Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court
I'm having a really hard time understanding the relevance of some of the things you say but you know more about it than I do. If what you say is correct about the information released so far then what we "know" could be very incomplete (and all I know is based on media reports so it could well be "completely nothing").
Highwood's lawyer made a number of, ah-hem, "misrepresentations," that stood uncorrected. The dissenting appeal court judge made particular reference to these inaccuracies, viewing them as facts in his dissenting remarks. These inaccuracies will not stand uncorrected before the Supreme Court.
Western courts are typically based on an adversarial system where it's up to the opposing counsel to object to any mis-statements and present counter-evidence to refute it in order to convince the judge and / or jury of the facts of the case. Failure to do this can be taken as acceptance or acknowledgement of some fact in an issue which I would guess is the reason a judge from another court, referencing the case, would refer to them as such.
The opposing lawyers job is to present things in the best light for their client - while we'd hope lawyers are all decent and honest (ha) it's not really their job, I guess.
It is of note that the Governing Body directly approved, both the Alberta Appeal, and the Supreme Court Appeal. (Branch Manual - chapter 3, paragraph 27)
That sounds more like the instructions of the procedure to follow - whether it can be claimed that the "Governing Body directly approved the appeals" would depend on what what / who the "Coordinators Committee" is. Anyone know that?
it's up to the opposing counsel to object
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client" - Guilty as charged.
who the "Coordinators Committee" is
Every Committee is chaired by a Governing Body member, with other Governing Body members and helpers.
This photo has Sanderson as the chair of this committee, 3 other GB members, and at least 12 helpers in attendance.
Sanderson as the chair of this committee, 3 other GB members, and at least 12 helpers in attendance.
What a giant waste of time, MANpower & energy. I suspect the main function of the 'helpers' is to stroke the egos of the GB members by nodding their heads and agreeing with anything that spews from their mouths.
I suspect the main function of the 'helpers' is to stroke the egos of the GB members by nodding their heads and agreeing with anything that spews from their mouths.
I doubt that, I expect more than one at least is there to provide legal input to decisions they come up with.
I dont see how this law suit as a leg to stand on based on the fact that the person may have lost some business contacts ( ie. money ) indirectly from being removed or disciplinary chastised by a religoius organization of which he was once a supporting and devout member of .
To use an analogy lets a say a Catholic priest who was excommunicated from the Church for acts of pedophilia or apostasy, was to later on start up a business on his own and it came upon an acknowledgement by him that the people that he knew and associated with through the Church knew also of him being excommunicated and some decided to not do any business with him, would and should the Church/religion by held accountable for his prevailing loss of business ?
Religions do have these structures - but this does not mean they can be held accountable like a secular organisation. Then too it isn,t at all clear that ordinary jws are forced to shun - they do have a choice regarding how much shunning they will do - it is a grey area -
search, I,m afraid u r wasting your time and money
The accountability actually rests onto the person who went against the directions of the Religious organization of which he (they) were an engaging devoted member of, the prevailing consequences he (they) may have endured is result of his (their) own actions and behavior.
Non profit organizations whether religious or otherwise have the right to expel people who they do not want in a designated position of their organization.
If the person was being expelled simply and only from the endeavor of someone else wanting their position and there was a deliberate and intentional made up character assassination to accomplish this feat, then there might be some illegality to that action.
Randy. What is the relief you are asking for?
The interveners' factums have been filed.