Watch Tower sues Quotes for $100,000 plus plus plus...

by Quotes 354 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Jourles
    Jourles
    you included too much of the context in the quotes so that it is not Fair Use and constitutes infringement. Now, you apparently have not quoted ENOUGH of the context

    That is exactly what I was thinking. I wonder what a judge would think if he reviewed the first complaint filed, saw that the site mentioned too much information, and then read this new complaint which says there's not enough(out of context), and asked the WTS lawyers, WTF? Could you please make up your mind?

    In the end, I hope to god this goes to court and is drawn out to where everything gets aired in a public manner, and on the record of course. Something already tells me though that the WTS lawyers already have a rock solid plan in place to not let Quotes bring up anything doctrinally related in court. They will probably focus on the CDROM EULA and copyright issues. Both items are extremely business in nature and have nothing to do with religion. The less they drag religion into the courtroom, the better it will be for them. Quotes will have to find an excellent attorney that can bring the religious aspect into the courtroom. If he can accomplish that feat, the WTS will likely back down. They are not there to argue religious topics. They just want to pass go and collect that $100K.

  • glitter
    glitter

    Oh this is hilarious. (Not in a haha at Quotes way!) Oh let 'em try it. I'm sure the papers will be interested in this - anyone contacted the Guardian? Ex and Anti-Scientologists get sued all the time - maybe approach one of their webmasters (that Xenu site's webmaster) for advice on how to get the word out.

  • Scully
    Scully

    Three words come to mind with respect to the claims in this lawsuit:

    BURDEN OF PROOF

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard

    PUT UP YOUR OWN BLOGS NOW!

    Danny has many blogs/sites up with choice keywords & meta-tags everyone join in we are a mighty army

    LET THE GAMES BEGIN

  • avishai
    avishai
    Yes, this is pretty amazing. "Confidential information", indeed! I don't recall it being labelled as such when I was delivering it to strangers homes!

    Yeah, years of my life being told I would DIE if i did'nt give people this info, waking these poor folks up on a saturday morning, practically cramming it into their faces...................And NOW it's CONFIDENTIAL?

    Being told OTHERS would DIE unless they got this info. and now it's CONFIDENTIAL? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Margie
    Margie

    That bit about including "Official" in your metatags for the sole purpose of misleading search engines seems easily defeated. The site quotes passages from their "Official" publications, does it not?

  • pr_capone
    pr_capone

    Hey brudda.... I have sent your story to my local newspaper. I will be sending it to the topeka and KC papers as well.

    Hope it helps.

    Kansas District Overbeer

  • avishai
    avishai

    And the Ultimate Irony is??? They want to hide behind first amendment rights in the US for their dirty little pedophile cover ups, and yet are doing whatever they can to deny quotes the same freedom because they are "embarassed".

  • Finally-Free
    Finally-Free
    They are not there to argue religious topics.

    Haven't they already brought religion into it by using the phrase "divine calling" several times in the letter?

    As far as "embarrassing" the plaintiff is concerned, they do that quite well all by themselves. And they have good reason to be embarrassed. If I made such foolish statements so often I'd be embarrassed too.

    Quotes site is excellent for research and I didn't notice any negative commentary there.

    W

  • Scully
    Scully

    Another funny thought:

    If the claim is that the WTS is "embarrassed" by the selective use of quotations, is it due to the fact that official retractions or errata notices were published, but overlooked by Quotes in the creation of the website? Obviously, if the WTS can produce such official retractions or errata notices, such as those that appear in newspapers when they make erroneous statements, then that would solidify their claim, wouldn't it.

    Like I said before: Burden of Proof .... it is all on the shoulders of the WTS to prove these claims.

    And I hope Quotes countersues the WTS for frivilous litigation.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit