Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

by TerryWalstrom 56 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • search
    search

    John:

    Not sure what your point is in my case.

  • What Now?
    What Now?

    I don’t have the legal background that some of you have, but Gnams testimony on the meaning of “disfellowshipped” is completely misleading. He is making it sound like it only refers to “spiritual fellowship”, and says that the person is “not completely shunned”, and that “normal family relations continue”. I call bullshit.

  • zeb
    zeb

    pity there is no footage of the liars at their work.

    and this is another dollar drain opened up.

  • berrygerry
    berrygerry
    pity there is no footage of the liars at their work.

    1h 13m 38s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT-pOWYwRlM&feature=youtu.be&t=1h13m38s

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    What exactly was the ruling of the lower Court?

  • lastmanstanding
    lastmanstanding

    Sharia Law. “theocratic tyranny”

    http://torontosun.com/2017/09/25/stop-normalizing-sharia-law-in-canada/wcm/e9de51b5-8aef-4a11-a1eb-79a87b570930

    That is where this is going. And it would not already be where it’s at except for Watchtower’s long list of court actions to date.

    What can a religion do to you? Can a religion shove you in a wood chipper to silence you and call it “sacraments”?

    Not yet, but it seems to be coming...

    What can they do right now?

    They can humiliate you. That’s legal.

    They can destroy your familial relationships. That’s legal.

    They can destroy your social network. That’s legal.

    And in this case, they can wreck your business. So far, that’s legal.

    They can rape your children and threaten you into silence. That’s legal. They’ve been doing it a long time. Still doing it.

    They can’t yet murder you. Although Watchtower did bemoan that in an article.

    And the Sharia Law activists are watching... I wonder why they are not here, also a “friend of the court”

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    Fisherman: What exactly was the ruling of the lower Court?

    You might find what you are looking for in this article from Oct 2016:

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/1725/court-backs-judicial-review-of-church-ruling


    This is the 2016 filing:

    https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2016/2016abca255/2016abca255.html


  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    whatnow: Gnams testimony on the meaning of “disfellowshipped” is completely misleading.

    Gnam's testimony on a lot of stuff was misleading. Very Watchtower-esque.

    I might have to listen to the webcast again - I was making candy yesterday while I was listening and I know I missed a lot. What I did pick up was that the issue of "contract" was on the table.

    Question: is not the act of baptism a contractual one? Mr. WT Gnam brought up the baptism "handbook" as a diversion away from the elders' "handbook" but is baptism itself not a contract? A contract between the candidate (who has been given all the "rules", according to Gnam) and the Org itself?

    The BOE only calls JCs for those who have entered into a contract with the org - JCs are only for baptized JWs. Of course there is a contractual relationship. And that relationship is a clear contract between a baptized congregant and the org (represented by the elders). The Org has clearly laid out the rules around their contract with the congregant - once you are baptized, you are in a contractual position with the org.

  • John Davis
    John Davis

    I used Miranda case to show that it is not just the courts vote to reverse or affirm a lower courts decision. That how the decision is written and how barrow or broad the decision is written can affect future cases. So in this case if u win or watchtower wins, doesn't mean that the winning side will go not necessarily get out smelling like roses or that past the vote of the court everything is just commentary. The full decision really matters with its wording.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Well said lastmanstanding

    They can humiliate you. That’s legal.

    They can destroy your familial relationships. That’s legal.

    They can destroy your social network. That’s legal.

    And in this case, they can wreck your business. So far, that’s legal.

    They can rape your children and threaten you into silence. That’s legal. They’ve been doing it a long time. Still doing it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit