Has the WTBTS ever made money, in the form of compensation, in a law suit against another organization or person?
Just wondering? Do they sue for defamation of character or daren't they?
Has the WTBTS ever sued 'someone' and won compensation?
by Gill 10 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
Not that I'm aware of (am probably wrong though) - they've tried a few times though.
Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell once sued a Baptist pastor, Rev. J.J. Ross for libel after the minister published a tract entitled, Some facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Russell<> (Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 42-44).
According to a New York newspaper, The Brooklyn Eagle, (11 January 1913, p. 7) Rev. Ross, the pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, accused Russell among other charges of teaching, "the destructive doctrines of one man who was neither a scholar nor a theologian," (Ibid).
Russell's attorney was none other that Joseph F. Rutherford who was to become the Society's next president after Russell's death in 1916.
Russell lost this case and was unable to prove libel in Rev. Ross's accusations that Russell, "...never attended the higher schools of learning; knows comparatively nothing of philosophy, systematic or historical theology and is totally ignorant of the dead languages," (Ibid; emphasis added).
http://www.watchman.org/jw/jwcourt.htmAll the 'criticisms' of the WTBTS appear to factual not libellous.
-
Oroborus21
Greetings!
Technically the answer is Yes. But this is so really only if you go to the beginning of the "modern-day" Organization.
For all intents and purposes, in the beginning the Society WAS Charles Taze Russell and CTR was the WTBTS. At the turn of the century, a local gazette, the Brooklyn Eagle published a lot of bad press against Russell and came to print a cartoon of him involving the Miracle Wheat Scheme.
Russell sued for libel and defamation. A lot of INTERESTING things occurred during the trial including admissions that were made by certain Society big-wigs and I think that the Society learned a lesson very early in its history. Incidently, Russell lost the suit.
During the 20th century the Society brought either separately, or backed individual plaintiffs or sometimes together with other groups brought numerous claims regarding free exercise of religion as is well known. Some of these might have resulted in monetary compensation for individual plaintiffs but I would have to research that further to be certain.
In today' s modern litigation, I think that the Society would be extremely careful to initiate any kind of lawsuit and certainly seeks to avoid as many as possible. Modern discovery rules would allow opposing counsel to poke into all sorts of hidden nooks including actions, operations, expenditures and finances, electronic records and many other things that the Society has kept confidential.
As far as a defamation lawsuit, the chances of winning are so low and what needs to first be proven is so high that I can't imagine a circumstance where it would be worth it to pursue.
What we also must remember is that from the Society's viewpoint a certain amount of mudslinging and criticism is beneficial. The Society promotes the myth that it is God's sole organization on Earth, that it as the physical part of the "bride of Christ" is due to receive much persecution, etc. and these things only serve to reinforce the US vs. THEM mentality and culture. So rather than try to stop any defamation occurring the Society would just point and say "See we told you so. Satan's system is out to get us. Didn't Jesus say his followers would be persecuted? yada, yada, yada......"
-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
-
Mary
Actually yes they have. I can't remember the woman's name, but a couple of years ago, a former Witness woman tried sueing the Borg because the elders never reported the brother who molested her as a child, to the police. The judge----as asshole of the first order, decided that the Borg couldn't be held accountable and actually told this poor woman she had to pay for the legal fees of the WTB&TS........I don't know whether the scumbags ever enforced it, but that judge should've been shot and pissed on for coming up with such a pathetic judgement......I'll see if I can find the article..........
-
Gill
Sometimes, Mary, when I hear about cases like the one you mention, it just makes me despair to think that the WTBTS and other such cults will ever be revealed to be what they are.
However, when I read a nice lady like you saying the judge should be shot and pissed on, I smile and know there's hope yet!!
We'll get the bastards!!! I can feel a big piss coming on!! (sooner or later....I hope I live to see the day!!)
-
talesin
I think that was Vicki Boer, she posts here ... hmm, what is her handle ... remember, just last month she posted about her abuser (her father) being found guilty?
tal
-
Forscher
Her name was Vikki Boer. She sued them and won a judgement of $20,000 Canadian. However, that was less than thew $50,000 the WTBTS offered to settle, so, under Canadian law she could be ordered to pay the WTBTS' legal costs and they went for it and got the order for it. As far as I remember, the publicity was so bad from that one, that they announced they wouldn't try to collect on it. I do not know if they kept their word. Maybe somebody could e-mail Bowen at Silent lambs and find that out? Maybe Barbara Anderson could do that for us if she sees this?
Forscher -
loveis
Actually, the amount she was awarded was $5,000 (Canadian $), not $20,000. The judge also did not find any failure to report on the part of the congregation or the WTS; the small amount awarded was, instead, on the basis that the WTS wrongfully forced her to "confront" the abuser (her father), against her will, by misapplying their own policy/rules/understanding of scripture.Review the full case at Canada's archival site of decisions:
-
orangefatcat
I was under the impression that Vicki won only $5000. the Society then told her she had to pay legal costs etc and then they decided for some reason not to pursue the issue anylonger.
OFC
-
Gill
OFC -
Wasn't this because they had earlier offered $50,000 with a gagging clause and Vikki had refused it.
If she had accepted the gagging clause the bOrg would not have been publicly revealed to be covering up for pedophiles.