WTBTS draged to the Supreme Court

by Gerard 3 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Gerard
    Gerard

    It seems that the original law suit took place on Connecticut. The plaintiff filed her original complaint in three counts "on March 25, 1998, including a third count of breach of contract. That complaint alleged acts and omissions occurring from early 1976 to 1995."

    http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP78/78ap517.pdf

    She alleged "intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress."

    She argues that "her claim is based on negligence arising within the context of marital counseling. Allegedly, at the direction of the elders, the plaintiff stayed in her abusive marriage and suffered emotional distress separate from the distress she suffered as a result of her marriage. "

    [...] The plaintiff claims that because the corporate defendant had a rule that its members could not litigate in civil court, she did not bring her action until her membership in the congregation was terminated, and, therefore, the statute of limitations should have been tolled until her disfellowship in 1996.

    [...] the court determined that it could not consider the plaintiff?s negligent infliction of emotional distress count without excessively entangling itself in matters of the Jehovah religion and burdening the free exercise rights of the defendants. [...] Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.

    Because no Connecticut appellate court has determined the extent to which the first amendment provides protection to religious entities and officials from tort liability on facts similar to those involved in this case, the case has been appealed and brought to the Superior Court.

    MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 APPEAL --SUMMARY DISPOSITION

    [...]

    03M63 DeCORSO, GAIL V. WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT, ET AL. http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2003/041904pzor.pdf

    It should prove interesting to see how far behind the Constitution the WT can hide from its faulty decision-making. Does ayone has more data?

    This topic was first discussed in this bulletin last year:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/62323/1.ashx

  • jwsons
    jwsons

    bttt

    ?????

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    I think she lost. First Amendment entanglements.

    Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice. We conclude that the court properly granted the defendants? (Watchtower Society) motion for summary judgment as to the count of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The judgment is affirmed.

    In this opinion the other judges concurred.

    http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP78/78ap517.pdf

    (Italics mine)

  • 144001
    144001

    The title to this thread is inaccurate as the Supreme Court did not grant a writ of certiorari (a decision to hear the case) within applicable time constraints. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not ever hear this case, and the decision of the highest court to actually hear that matter will stand.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit