Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
To use another situational analogy ......
Lets say a man was once a devoted practicing Mennonite who made business relationships with other fellow Mennonites over the years but he eventually left the religion and was no longer seen by this religious group as a member or brother as it may be, so these people decided not to continue on with any further business engagements with this fellow..
Would the Mennonite religious organization be legally accountable for this eventual occurrence this man had to endure or suffer ?
I think not .
Likewise in this situation. It isn't the WT's interpretation of JCs that should have the most bearing - it is the appellant's interpretation of the JC hearings that should carry the most weight.
OC, who is the appellant in the related SCC case?
OC, it is not wt interpretation that JC is Religious practice, up until now in Canana that is how the Court viewed it. I can't see how the Court will secularize JC church process, but anything is possible.
What, in my opinion, was a very telling comment was the response at about 3:06 when asked specifically, "If the rules were not followed (I imagine by elders handling the JC according to the secret elders manual), too bad! Is that the idea?"
The lawyer was forced to respond, "Yes."
That has been my own experience with elders. They have a set of rules, and just like typical law enforcement, they pick and choose which rules they follow, and if they, the elders, do not follow the rules and someone is emotionally, physically, or spiritually damaged TOO BAD!!
fisherman: OC, who is the appellant in the related SCC case?
yeah, sorry...I got it mixed up/backwards and it was too late to edit
Distracted - making candies again
I think they get more than just that. --OC
There is an insinuation by the Repondent and by the Court throughout the Hearing that the expulsion of a JW member is like the termination of contract employment of a minister by the Church and that a defrocked minister can bring the church to Court for damages but Mr Gnam argues that such contract must not only exist as it relates to JW but must at the same time be a legally enforceable contract to begin with ( not all contracts are legally enforceable), and that the church cannot be brought to Court for church doctrine only for property, civil rights, torts, or criminal matters -but not for religious process.
( I got confused too before listening to the whole appeal . I had figured that WT won at lower Court and that MR Hall was Appealing the decision, but the context of what you posted made it clear what you wanted to say anyway.)
Thank you Orphan Crow... that is what i was thinking also, you explain it so well..
You should be there to help the lawyer for Randy out. Really, it takes an informed EX-JW to be able to sort thru and demolish the polite, sincere sounding half truths of WT lawyers.
If we win
What remedies are you asking for?