Watchtower Attorneys Stumped (page 4)

Simon

Yes, the more we can help people like this then the better it is I think ...

expatbrit

Hello:

The Watchtower has before the judge a "MOTION TO DISMISS' this case on the bases of the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine" and the "First amendment" which they feel bars the court from reviewing internal church action taken against a member for 'spiritual violations'.

I don't know squat about American law. I am however, aware of a Canadian case in which a person took the WT to court successfully over his disfellowshipping, and I believe the court forced the WT to overturn their own disfellowshipping. The reasoning, as I understand it, was that the WT had not followed their own published procedures.

Hopefully I should get some stuff on this in the near future.

Expatbrit

jst2laws

Minimus,

Blondie, it always comes to----What law did they break? Do they have a right to do what they do under the present laws of the land?

I'm just expressing my personal understanding of the law. This is not a criminal court, but a civil court. There is no need to prove a law has been broken. What needs to be proven is that the action of one party has caused harm to another. In a religious setting it is understood by one's membership that they accept the actions and discipline of the church. The state stays out of religious business EVEN if their discipline over "spiritual violations" causes great harm. That's why little can be done about the GREAT HARM caused by the WT's shunning actions. But if it can be proven that HARM has been cause by a "secular" action by the church disguised as internal church discipline then the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine" would not apply and the church officials responsible would be liable. I think this team of attorneys knows what they are doing and the Watchtower knows they've got their butt in the wringer. Steve

William Penwell

jst2laws

I understand what you are trying to say is that the burden of proof in a civil matter is a lot less than in a criminal case. The WT may not be held criminally responsible for their actions due to them pleading their rights to religious freedom but it doesn't alleviate them of being sued in a civil court.

Will

jst2laws

The WT may not be held criminally responsible for their actions due to them pleading their rights to religious freedom but it doesn't alleviate them of being sued in a civil court.
Will

Not exactly, Will. As I understand it neither the first amendment nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine allow a religious organization to engage in criminal activity. That would be prosecuted in criminal court. But civil court is where individuals can sue for damages resulting from the actions of others instead of a state agency bring charges of violation of law and prosecuting.

It is possible that during the process of a civil hearing that unlawful conduct could also come to light that would result in criminal charges. Then that would be a whole new game that the state or federal authorities would pursue.

Again this is just my understanding.

Jst2laws

Simon

There was a case in the UK recently (Wales) where someone sued their local church and won because of the hurt caused by their excommunication / shunning. It wasn't JWs but a very similar situation.

I think the tide is definitely turning against Religion generally ... people are looking at them and saying "why should they get away with this crap? where do they get off stirring up so much hatred and trouble?"

noidea

Steve,

If you find out when the next court date is please PM me I'm not far from Manchester. I would like to attend to support Barbara & Joe.

waiting

Hello Noidea,

Ed Bell's phone number is on page one - why not call him? Others have spoken with him - easy man to speak with. Any lawyer tangling with the WTBTS needs an education in Watchtowerese.

I would think that he, Barb & Joe would love to have others come to the hearing. Your presence makes a statement of support for them. And lawyers love to have an audience.....I've been told.

1 If you want to know over what question they were stumped or 2 if you know of a victim of molestation who was silenced or disfellowshipped for speaking up
Call Edward Bell, Attorney at Law, at 1-843-546-2408

waiting

onacruse

Thanks for the info, Steve.

The distinction between civil and criminal court is very important. As in the O.J. Simpson case...he was found innocent in criminal court (therefore, not a felon), but guilty in civil court (therefore, broke [or close to it]).

In my (admittedly untrained) opinion, Barb and Joe wouldn't stand a chance in criminal court: US judges perceive the Constitutional separation of church-and-state almost as if to even touch the issue will infect them with an incurable disease...I doubt, for example, that the practice of DFing, per se, would ever be adjudicated. And even if it was, the WTS would probably just tweak their "procedures" in some very minor way, so as to appear to comply with federal statute...and then continue merrily along ruining yet 10s of thousands of more people every year.

otoh, if the WTS knew it was going to get slammed with multi-million dollar civil penalties for every violation of their "ecclesiastical" procedures, they'd change policy overnight. After the Jimmy Swaggart trial, it took the WTS less than a month to get "new light" and switch to the "voluntary donation" basis.

God doesn't talk to those jerks...money does.

Kudos to you, ((Barb and Joe)), for taking on this burden. Go-getters like you, and Scott and Vicki, are getting the attention of the WTS like never before.

And thanks also to Mr. Bell for taking on this daunting legal task.

Craig

edit to add: And also, kudos to all you others who are taking legal action...too many to count.

William Penwell

Jst2laws

Thanks for your response. It makes sense that if the WT is found negligent in a civil case this may open up them for criminal prosecution. I think the WT lawyers maybe to smart to get sucked into admitting anything. That is why they may turn around and settle a civil suite out of court with the conditions of a gag order put on the plaintiffs.

Simon said,

There was a case in the UK recently (Wales) where someone sued their local church and won because of the hurt caused by their excommunication / shunning. It wasn't JWs but a very similar situation.

That would be great if that happened here to the WT. All we would need is the WT to lose one case to set as precedent and their days of shunning would be finished.

Will

Watchtower Attorneys Stumped

Share this