Atlantis

Joined

• started 1,030 topics
• posted 6,728 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Atlantis

• 
  23

  More Watchtower Double Speak!

  by gumby in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  avove is a 1999 km quote pages 3-6 on the dangers of the internet.. .

  you don't need to read all this.

  just read the opening line and paragraph 19.....then read paragraph 22. in summary, the opening line below says... the watchtower does all our research for us and we need not look elsewhere.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  Gumby:

  Thanks Gumby, and Happy New Year!

  Cheers!
• 
  174

  we have the truth there is no doubt

  by PMJ in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  jehovahs wittnesses have the truth there is no doubt about i.people can say what they like ut there is no other group of people who bring glory to jehovah

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  WT-70-6-1-pp.-343-344 However, regarding the name “Jehovah,” The Argus of Cape Town, South Africa, said on March 9, 1970: “The man who has been most intimately concerned with the revision [New English Bible], Prof. Sir Godfrey Driver, . . . said: ‘There never was such a word [as Jehovah] until the French scribes invented it in 1520 or whenever it was. It is a monstrosity.’” But French scribes did not invent the name “Jehovah.” It was in use centuries before, Raymond Martin’s Pugio Fidei using it in the form “Jehova” in the year 1270. Yet, because of such negative attitudes toward this name, the introduction to The New English Bible, on page xvi, states: “The present translators have retained this incorrect but customary form [Jehovah] in the text of passages where the name is explained with a note on its pronunciation (e.g. Exodus 3.15) and in four place-names of which it forms a constituent element; elsewhere they have followed ancient translators in substituting ‘LORD’ or ‘GOD’, printed as here in capital letters, for the Hebrew name.” http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/gods_name.html

  WHAT ABOUT "JEHOVAH" ?

  Some people in recent years have used the name "JEHOVAH" in place of "YHWH". According to the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses, this name was first recorded in 1270 A.D. more than a thousand years after the death of Christ, by a Catholic Monk, Raymundus Martini. [See Aid to Bible Understanding, pages 884, 885].

  Scholars recognize that this "patched-up" name of God invented a mere 700 years ago, with the vowels from "ADONAI" inserted between the consonants "YHWH" and then further altered with the letters, "J" and "V" is incorrect.

  The following encyclopedias consider the name "JEHOVAH" to be FALSE Merits Student Encyclopedia; Encyclopedia Americana; The Jewish Encyclopedia; Encyclopedia International The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible; The New Catholic Encyclopedia; The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, and many more.
• 
  3

  Various JW news articles # 7

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some news articles may appear a day or so late on jwd friends section.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17671312%255e16947,00.html the arts .

  perpetual child: clockwise from far left, michael jackson cuddles his monkey bubbles; with sister janet; arriving at court this year; in the jackson 5.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  serendipity:

  Your welcome, and Happy New Year!

  Cheers!
• 
  10

  Information about M.L. McPhail

  by maplaza in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have seen the messages posted about the w.h.

  conley subject... and i have think that maybe somebody in this forum can help me with the following.

  i have searched the watchtower reprints volumes and what i need is any other information.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  These folks might have some information!

  http://members.optusnet.com.au/~yllenna/jaydee'splace/Page_2x.html
• 
  3

  Various JW news articles # 7

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some news articles may appear a day or so late on jwd friends section.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17671312%255e16947,00.html the arts .

  perpetual child: clockwise from far left, michael jackson cuddles his monkey bubbles; with sister janet; arriving at court this year; in the jackson 5.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  Some news articles may appear a day or so late on JWD Friends section. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17671312%255E16947,00.html

  THE ARTS

  Perpetual child: Clockwise from far left, Michael Jackson cuddles his monkey Bubbles; with sister Janet; arriving at court this year; in the Jackson 5 (Totally) off the wall It was a weird year for Michael Jackson, even by his standards. Cleared of child abuse charges in the US's biggest court case since the O.J. Simpson trial, a contrite Jackson promised to cease 'sleepovers' with boys. The seeds of this strangeness were evident in 1981, before Jacko and wacko were joined in the lexicon, when journalist Danny Baker was summoned to interview the King of Pop. Here, he recalls a surreal encounter December 31, 2005 ON average I still get asked about Michael Jackson about once a month. Sometimes the phone will ring and it'll be a Japanese magazine or a Danish television station asking if I have a spare hour to tell them all about Michael. I once received a letter via the BBC from a girl in Iceland who inquired if I still had anything Michael might have signed or, I promise you, touched. Perhaps the best of all was the pay-per-minute phone company that said it would give me pound stg. 5000 ($12,000) for the cassette tapes of my interviews with him, plus a slice of the subsequent action. So it appears that, other than his employees, Uri Geller and Bubbles the Monkey, among the few other adult life forms Michael has met during the past couple of decades are two British journalists: Martin Bashir and me. This, by anyone's standards, is not a life well lived. I was a writer at British magazine New Musical Express and even then we were stunned by the wisdom of his advisers. "The NME?" we gasped, "Why does he want to give a world exclusive to the NME? Has he ever read the NME?" True, at the time, NME was the biggest-selling music weekly in the world but, equally, it got that way because it pioneered the kind of flip, raspberry-blowing irreverence towards celebrity that overwhelms us all today. We were hardly going to glowingly salute the King of Pop. Yet Michael, who was 22 at the time, had approved it and was apparently "really looking forward to opening his heart" to this unknown British hack. Are you sensing a pattern here? I remember he arrived late, very late. I had already been in Los Angeles for a couple of days and was told that the interview would take place only when Michael felt ready. In the meantime Epic Records had cushioned me in the Sunset Marquis Hotel with an unlimited tab and a chauffeur on permanent standby in case I wanted to go somewhere. When photographer Joe Stevens and I were eventually scrambled to the appointed meeting, nothing happened for about three hours. Well, when I say nothing that's not entirely true or fair. The other Jacksons began turning up in dribs and drabs. First to arrive was Tito, a surly hunk of seniority among the brothers, who launched right in by saying that any questions I had I should direct by name to whichever Jackson I felt was best suited to answer. "So if you are gonna talk about the business or how we came to be what we are today or what our plans are," he continued without meeting my eye, "there's no point asking ... I don't know ... Michael, for instance." Uh-oh. It was as if the airconditioning had suddenly gone into reverse. I could see that there were going to be two big problems with this proviso. The first was that I suddenly couldn't recall a single other Jackson brother's name. Indeed, had Tito not been wearing a baseball cap with the word Tito on it I might have believed he was called Harpo. The second snag was that ... how should I break this to him in terms he could understand? Well, how about this: Tito, you may find this hard to believe, but nobody in the entire world gives a rat's arse about the Jackson 5 any more. It's over, and has been since the release of Michael's Off the Wall. But, of course, Tito didn't need to be told that. He knew it only too well; hence his clumsy attempt to chop his kid brother off at the knees before his arrival could reduce his once acclaimed siblings to mere shadows. This barely concealed panic at Michael's staggering talent and runaway success was to become the overriding tone of the meeting among the brothers. But let us first get him into the room. *** MICHAEL arrived last, accompanied by his sister Janet. At that point the world hadn't heard of Janet Jackson and at first I thought she might be his personal assistant. She showed him to a chair and then, taking the seat next to him, appeared to run through an elaborate itinerary in barely a whisper. At this point of his life Jacko was still recognisably human. He was still clearly a black guy and not the eerie wraith we have learned to gawp at. However, he was plainly not about to crack open a beer and ask about the sports scores either. He wore the most enormous mirrored dark glasses and once seated -- and this really threw me -- picked up a phone and held it to his ear. "Should I wait until he's through?" I asked Janet. "Oh no, he's not talking to anybody," she replied with a smile. "It's just something he feels comfortable with." And she giggled a little giggle. And Michael giggled a little giggle. And the brothers slumped back in their chairs, scowling. "Also," she went on, "any questions for Michael? Could you ask them to me and I'll get your answer for you." This was too much. "What, he can't just answer me himself?" I shot back at her. "Oh, he will eventually, he just has to feel comfortable with everything first," she replied calmly. "But he's only sitting four feet away," I pointed out and, regrettably, we lapsed into bickering. Meantime, Tito, Randy, Grumpy and Sneezy were all saying, "Hell. What's wrong with us? We're here too, you can ask us anything you like!" At this point I suddenly realised we were all talking over and around Michael as though he wasn't there at all. An Epic press officer entered and asked if everything was OK. Janet told her with a light laugh that I had a problem adjusting to Michael's "ways". So I was asked to step outside and the press officer gave me a little talk. "Danny, Michael is a very individual individual. It is important to understand that. It has taken us a long time to get him to where he is now. Now, he will speak to you but you must let him judge that moment. Actually I'm glad we have this time because I didn't get a chance to tell you what he regards as off limits for this interview." This was getting better and better. "Individual individual"? "Where he is now"? What on earth did that mean? It is important to understand that at this point in the early 1980s, although Michael was already one of the biggest pop stars in the world, the words wacko and Jacko had never been heard in tandem. *** NOBODY knew he was crazy yet. At least nobody outside the people gathered in and around that room. I certainly didn't and had brought a notepad full of what I thought would be relevant questions on the state of black music and black culture in America. I was starting to sense that I might as well have been asking them of George Burns. So, what was off limits? "OK now," the press officer continued. "Firstly, no swearwords. Secondly, Michael is a devout Jehovah's Witness so no talk about birthdays and Christmas." I ask you to picture my face at this point. "Lastly," she went on, "he will under no circumstances be drawn on what he thinks of the Osmonds. Are we cool with that?" The Osmonds? The Osmonds hadn't had a hit in 10 years. This man had just finished Thriller. Good God, where was this kid's mind at? And now, of course, suddenly all I wanted to ask about was the Osmonds. Anyway, back in I went. Michael remained serene and glued to his phone and, if I wanted him to respond to anything at all, it seemed you had to ask things such as "Who's your favourite actor, Michael?" To which Janet would whisper: "He wants to know who your favourite actor is." Then Michael would mutter "Robert De Niro" to Janet, then Janet would say "Robert De Niro" to me. Was I confused? Intimidated? Freaked out a little? No, I was loving it. I was an NME writer and I was getting plenty here. I also noticed that when the brothers answered questions they wouldn't talk to me. They would talk, bellow even, at Michael. It was as if this was a rare get-together and they were using it as a surrogate therapy session. They had plenty they wanted to get off their chests before he disappeared into another level of fame altogether. For example, when I asked what it was like in the days before the Jackson 5 were famous one of them, let's say Marlon, said: "Oh, see, that's something Michael wouldn't remember. We were on the road 365 days a year back then. We had no help, no crew. "Tito, Jackie and me we had to haul the drums, the microphones, everything ourselves. Set it all up, take it all down, move on to the next town. Seven shows a week, man. Michael -- he'd be asleep in the bus, man. Just come on, sing and dance, then be too small to do the real dirty work." Addressing the subject of Michael's success, I received the following heart-warming response: "Well, his sales are good for us because people who buy one of his records will probably look in the section behind and get one of ours too." All the time Michael looked as though he would rather be somewhere else. I really started to feel for him. Small slips got pounced on. Here he is commenting on the opening track he'd written for the latest, and as it turned out last, album with his brothers. "Well, I wrote that opening track in that way ... because I thought it would make a good opening track." There was a pause and then Tito, with some justification, said: "Oh, great answer, Michael." More laughter and Michael became further detached from proceedings. Later, when most of the others had left and there was just him and me, he became a different person. Well, more animated anyway, although, sadly, just as trite. The peacock on their new album sleeve represented "colours coming together". He didn't feel there was such a thing as black music and was happy for Blondie to have hits with rap songs because they knew how to "cross over". He considered what he did neither rock nor soul, but just show business. Benny Hill was a genius. The Sex Pistols were cool because Sid Vicious was a funny name. He asked where I went to have fun in London. Often his thoughts would peter out in mid-sentence as if he had just caught the sound of his own voice and had no confidence in it. Incredibly, it seemed that Michael just wasn't used to being listened to. At the time I wrote that Michael was like Chance the gardener in the Peter Sellers film Being There. That's clearly wrong because Chance was mistaken for a genius. Jackson was a genius and I was with him at about the time that gift began to overwhelm him. Seismic personal and professional changes were happening that would prove impossible to govern. Chief among these was surely that his family, the only connection he had to a wider world, was starting to lose any meaning for him and that he was about to destroy everything they had slogged and sweated to build. He was condemning them to become the Osmonds and there was nothing he could do about it. I remember watching the video to the song Bad some time later, the one Martin Scorsese shot as a gangland fight in a subway station. In the film Michael was at his peak, a cutting-edge pop star playing the coolest member of a streetwise gang setting the pace and breaking the rules. Everybody wanted to be Michael at that point -- especially Michael. Instead here was a confused and frightened boy who though totally comfortable, assured even, headlining Madison Square Garden, had not the slightest idea how to walk to the corner shop and buy a loaf of bread. In the real world he was a sham, and the worst thing about that was not only did he know it, but he wasn't allowed to forget it by those once close to him. I last saw him in LA a few days later when he acquiesced to a photo session. (The camera had really panicked him at the initial meeting.) He was far friendlier and more relaxed and kept reminding me of different Benny Hill sketches, even asking me to do bits of Monty Python stuff "in a British accent". He was fun. But then, he was away from everyone and wearing stage clothes and make-up. I bade him goodbye at the lift. "Take care, Michael," I said, and he reacted as if he'd never heard the phrase before. "Yes. Take care. Yes, I will 'take care'," he said chuckling. "You take care too, Sid Vicious!" Mercy, a joke even. Then he caught himself again, and stopped still. For a moment he didn't know what to do. In that instant a personal assistant said he was wanted on the phone. His voice became small again. "Do you know who it is?" he asked. The assistant said she wasn't sure. He looked uneasy and walked back down the corridor. That was my last glimpse of what was left of the real Michael Jackson. Though he was not yet completely insane, I believe he still knew the difference between Jackson the unassailable megastar and the little Jackson kid. Soon he was going to make a choice and that was all going to change. Totally, irrevocably and so thoroughly that not even his own family would recognise him. The Times Weekend Review Danny Baker is a British writer and radio host. He was 24 when he interviewed Michael Jackson for NME. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13119 Baby Ammon dies on Christmas Day The Attorney General's Office has said Baby Ammon's death brought the State's wardship to an end.
  
  The infant's body will automatically be turned over to the parents.
  
  Baby Ammon, who was taken from his parents' custody three weeks ago and made a ward of the State, died around 11 p.m. on Christmas Day at the Port of Spain General Hospital.
  
  The Ammons are now free to go ahead with funeral arrangements.
  
  On Wednesday, a representative of The Association of Jehovah's Witnesses confirmed the baby's death on Sunday.
  
  Cause of death was not disclosed.
  
  Up to the time of the infant's death on Sunday, he remained a ward of the State and had not been returned to the custody of his parents since head of the Neonatal Unit at the POSGH, Dr Petronella Manning-Alleyne sought legal help to allow her to treat the infant.
  
  Joanne Ammon gave birth to twins on November 25 but they were suffering from a low blood count.
  
  One of the babies died of shock, and the other infant developed complications on December 3, prompting doctors to recommend an urgent blood transfusion.
  
  However, the parents objected to the blood transfusion on the basis that it was against their religious beliefs.
  
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAILY JOURNAL ONLINE http://www.mydjconnection.com/articles/2005/12/29/fredericktown/news55.txt

  Land Transfers WD Pine Castle Enterprises to David W. Whitener. WD Jerry Gipson et al to Larry Paul Baker. WD Earl Ray Maize and wife to Mark D. Menteer. WD Ernest Harding to Barry J. Mills and wife Trustees. WD Mo. Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to James S. Miller and wife. WD Virginia Lee Wilson to Opie John Russell and wife. WD Donna Kranjec and husband to Wesley E. Royer and wife. Ben Deed Christine J. Clark to Joseph W. Clark. WD Richard Stern to Northtown Lumber, Inc. QCD Yvonne Percy and husband to Yvonne Percy and husband. QCD Rebecca S. Watson to Kenneth L. Watson. WD Barry J. Mills and wife Trustees to James Granger and wife.
• 
  27

  Anointed seem to think they have special POWERS

  by justice for all in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ever notice this about the so called anointed?

  the ones i've met seem to think they have these powers especially with the scriptures and some brothers and sisters treat them as such.

  i always thought this was weird and somewhat superstitious.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  oooopps! Sorry! I forgot to give you a link above.

  http://www.jwfiles.com/outline.htm

  http://www.jwfiles.com/outline.htm

  Cheers!
• 
  27

  Anointed seem to think they have special POWERS

  by justice for all in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ever notice this about the so called anointed?

  the ones i've met seem to think they have these powers especially with the scriptures and some brothers and sisters treat them as such.

  i always thought this was weird and somewhat superstitious.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  D. They claim to have a chosen and secret organization with special knowledge and angelic transmission.

  1. Vindication 1, 1931, pg 76, ...God’s organization is his chosen nation.
  2. Preperation, 1933 ,pg 36, 37, 64 .... ...transmission of information to God’s anointed people...the angels transmit this information, we know that they do it; the scriptures and the facts show that it is done...convey the thoughts to their minds...To all on the outside of the organization of Jehovah his is a secret organization.
  3. Holy Spirit 1976, pg 175, 176 He put his word in the mouth of his chosen people ....He has put his word, his message of the hour, into the mouth of the spiritual remnant.
  4. Wt, 10/15/1980, pg 17 God gives his humble servants special knowledge that others do not have... having advance knowledge from Jehovah, his servants are equipped .....
• 
  14

  Gillet vs Watchtower!

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watchtower bible & tract society of pennsylvania, inc., watchtower bible & tract society of new york, inc., watchtower bible & tract society of florida, inc., the west north miami congregation of jehovah's witnesses, inc., francois jn denis and maria nunes, .

  in the district court of appeal of florida .

  gillet v. watchtower bible & tract society case no.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  Lady Lee:

  Thank you for the assistance!
• 
  14

  Gillet vs Watchtower!

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watchtower bible & tract society of pennsylvania, inc., watchtower bible & tract society of new york, inc., watchtower bible & tract society of florida, inc., the west north miami congregation of jehovah's witnesses, inc., francois jn denis and maria nunes, .

  in the district court of appeal of florida .

  gillet v. watchtower bible & tract society case no.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  edited to deal with formatting problems Lady Lee

  from http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:9LiUEEydRN0J:www.3dca.flcourts.org/3d02-0817.pdf...illet&hl=en

  NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. HILDA and JOHN GILLET, Appellants,

  vs.

  WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF FLORIDA, INC., THE WEST NORTH MIAMI CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC., FRANCOIS JN DENIS AND MARIA NUNES,

  Appellees.

  IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

  THIRD DISTRICT

  JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2005

  **

  **

  ** CASE NO. 3D02-817

  **

  ** LOWER

  TRIBUNAL NO. 99-29822

  **

  Opinion filed May 11, 2005.

  An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jon I. Gordon , Judge. Shutts & Bowen, Francis A. Zacherl, III, and Colleen A. Hoey, Miami, for appellants. Adorno & Yoss, Jack R. Reiter, Gregory A. Victor, and Natalie J. Carlos, Miami, for appellees Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Florida, Inc., and The West North Miami Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Legal

  ---

  Page 2

  2

  Department, Mario F. Moreno, for appellee Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.

  Before GREEN, RAMIREZ

  *

  and WELLS, JJ. ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, AND CERTIFICATION WELLS, J.

  We grant the Appellants' Motion for Rehearing and deny Appellants' Motion for Certification. We withdraw the opinion issued on Dec. 8, 2004, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

  On November 23, 1996, Maria Nunes attended a field service meeting of the members of The West North Miami Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc. (the Miami Congregation) at the home of Hilda and John Gillet. During that meeting, the members prepared for that day’s field service which, as usual, consisted of door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering.

  After the meeting ended, the members got into their cars to travel to the areas where they would engage in these activities. When Nunes, who was parked in the Gillets’ driveway, backed out, she knocked Hilda Gillet into the roadway and where she was struck by an oncoming car.

  The Gillets subsequently filed suit against Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., the entity that

  * Judge Ramirez did not participate in oral argument.

  ---

  Page 3

  3

  publishes Bible based materials such as Awake! and The Watchtower; Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the entity that holds the copyright to the materials published by Watchtower of New York; The West North Miami Congregation at which Nunes worshipped; Nunes; and the driver of the other car that struck her, alleging negligence, vicarious liability, and loss of consortium. The three Watchtower defendants moved for summary judgment claiming that they could not be held vicariously liable as a matter of law for Nunes’ negligence since Nunes was neither their employee nor their agent at the time of the accident and that inquiry into this issue would entangle the court in the interpretation of religious teachings, doctrines, and internal policies in violation of the First Amendment. Because we agree that no agency relationship has been demonstrated, we affirm the summary judgment entered in the Watchtower defendants’ favor.

  AOrdinarily the existence of an agency relationship is a question of fact to be resolved by the factfinder.@ Eberhardy v. General Motors Corp., 404 F.Supp. 826, 830 (M.D. Fla. 1975). AWhen, however, a party bearing the burden of proof on an issue, fails to produce any supportive evidence, or when (as here) all of the evidence presented by both parties is so unequivocal that

  ---

  Page 4

  4

  reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion, a question that is ordinarily one of fact becomes a question of law, to be determined by the court.@ Id. Such is the case here. The essential elements of an actual agency relationship are A(1) acknowledgement by the principal that the agent will act for him, (2) the agent=s acceptance of the undertaking, and (3) control by the principal over the actions of the agent.@

  1

  Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422, 424 n.5 (Fla. 1990). The Gillets claim that there is Aample testimony@ that Jehovah=s Witnesses like Nunes are agents (or volunteers) of the church defendants when they engage in field service (door-to-door canvassing and proselytizing).

  They point to formal field service, which features distribution of Watchtower publications, as the centerpiece of the church defendants= activities and argue that because service is so thoroughly directed, regulated and overseen by the church defendants, that Nunes had to be acting as the church defendants= agent when she performed field service. This is insufficient to impose liability for two reasons.

  1

  No apparent agency is claimed or exists. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119, 121 (Fla. 1995) (Aan apparent agency exists only if each of three elements are present: (a) a representation by the purported principal; (b) a reliance on that representation by a third party; and (c) a change in position by the third party in reliance on the representation@).

  ---

  Page 5

  5

  First, when Nunes performed field service, she did so not as the agent of any church entity but, as she stated, "[for] Jehovah God" and as part of a well-established, long recognized-religious practice:

  For over 50 years, the Court has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering. It is more than historical accident that most of the cases involved First Amendment challenges brought by Jehovah=s Witnesses, because door-to-door canvassing is mandated by their religion. As we noted in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, 63 S.Ct. 870 (1943), the Jehovah=s Witnesses Aclaim to follow the example of Paul, teaching >publicly, and from house to house.= Acts 20:20. They take literally the mandate of the Scriptures, >Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.= Mark 16:15. In doing so they are obeying a commandment of God.@

  * * * *

  . . . [I]n Murdock v. Pennsylvania, the Court noted that Ahand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism

  B

  as old as the history of printing presses

  . It has been a potent force in various religious movements down through the years . . . . This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits.

  It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion. . . .@ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 158 n.7, 160-162, 122 S.Ct. 2080 (2002)(emphasis added)(footnotes omitted)(noting that Jehovah=s Witnesses derive their authority to proselytize via door-to-door

  ---

  Page 6

  6

  pamphleteering from the Book of Matthew wherein Jesus instituted a house-to-house search for people to whom to preach the good news). The constraints imposed by the church entities on use of the religious publications that they created, copyrighted, published and distributed, at most, impress upon and demand from each Jehovah=s Witness obedience to religious dogma, discipline and authority. See Folwell v. Bernard, 477 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). They do not make individual congregants agents of these entities.

  Second, there is no evidence that Nunes was acting as an agent for any church defendant when she got into her car to go to the place where she was to engage in religious activities. There is no evidence that any church defendant instructed, advised or in any manner controlled the means by which Nunes or any other congregant was to get to the place where they were to proselytize.

  There also is no evidence that any church defendant knew that Nunes was going to drive her own car as opposed to walking, riding a bike, taking a cab, riding with someone else, or, if available, taking public transportation. There certainly is no evidence that any church defendant asked Nunes to drive her car or attempted to control Nunes’ transportation in any manner by providing a vehicle, fuel, insurance, or by checking Nunes’ driving record or determining whether she had a valid driver’s license. Rather, the record

  ---

  Page 7

  7

  shows that after the meeting at the Gillet home, each congregant was making his or her own way to the place where he or she was going to engage in a religious activity.

  In sum, on this record, no agency relationship has been demonstrated.

  2

  See Brillhart v. Scheier, 243 Kan. 591, 597, 758 P.2d 219, 224 (1988)(where motorists injured by car driven by parish pastor on his way to discuss parish problem brought action against pastor and diocese, Kansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment entered in diocese=s favor, concluding negligence could not be imputed under doctrine of respondeat superior where pastor engaged in activity within his own discretion and control); see also Nye v. Kemp, 97 Ohio App.3d 130, 646 N.E.2d 262 (1994)(affirming a directed verdict in a church=s favor in an action brought against several church groups for damages sustained when church elder's vehicle collided with police cruiser, on a finding of a total lack of the control necessary to establish agency).

  Accordingly, we affirm. RAMIREZ, J., concurs.

  2

  For the same reasons, summary judgment was correctly entered on the Gillets’ Volunteer Protection Act claim under section 768.1355(1) of the Florida Statutes.

  ---

  Page 8

  8

  Gillet v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Case No. 3D02-817 GREEN, J. (dissenting from opinion on rehearing).

  As I see it, the issue in this case is whether the appellees, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., and The Miami Florida Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc. [collectively "Watchtower Defendants"], may be vicariously liable under a respondeat superior or agency theory for the personal injuries sustained by the appellants/plaintiffs due to the alleged negligent acts of Nunes, a Jehovah’s Witness, while en route to perform Field Service: to distribute the Watchtower Defendants’ literature and accept donations on their behalf. In other words, the question presented is whether the record shows that the Watchtower Defendants had the right to control Nunes’ activities during Field Service such that a jury can conclude that she was acting as a volunteer agent of the Watchtower Defendants at common law when her alleged careless driving caused injuries to the appellants/plaintiffs. With all due respect to my esteemed

  ---

  Page 9

  9

  colleagues in the majority, I believe that summary judgment is improper. This issue is one properly for the jury.

  3

  I. Facts

  Defendant Maria Nunes is a Jehovah’s Witness. On the day of the accident giving rise to this litigation, Nunes had just attended a Field Service meeting. She was leaving the meeting and proceeding to her designated Field Service area for distribution of Watchtower literature. As she was backing out of the driveway, she struck plaintiff Hilda Gillet and threw her into the path of an oncoming vehicle, causing her severe injuries.

  One of the hallmarks of membership in the Jehovah’s Witness organization is participation in "Field Service," the systematic distribution of religious literature. Congregants are required to spend ten hours each month in Field Service. Failure to perform Field Service can lead to loss of privileges and status in the congregation.

  A

  congregant can be declared "inactive" for failure to participate, and must be "reactivated" by the congregation’s Elder after explaining the cause of non-participation. The literature distributed during Field Service is published by Watchtower New York, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’

  3

  I agree with the majority’s conclusion, sub silencio, that there is no First Amendment bar to this claim. Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2002).

  ---

  Page 10

  10

  United States governing body. Watchtower Pennsylvania publishes, edits, and holds the copyrights to the distributed materials. Uniformity and consistency in the distribution of the literature is ensured by holding weekly training programs, and periodic follow-up training sessions that instruct congregants on methods of literature distribution. The congregants’ progress is evaluated and recorded.

  Watchtower New York approves a local congregation’s candidate for Edler positions; Elders are required to attend and oversee Field Service meetings where the congregants coordinate the distribution of literature. Each Jehovah’s Witness congregant must be approved by the Elders; Watchtower New York also must approve the congregant. The congregant must be trained and must work as an understudy in formal "Field Service." The congregant must be interviewed and approved by two Elders prior to commencing formal Field Service. The Elder’s are responsible for the congregant’s performance during Field Service. Elders often accompany congregants on Field Service to evaluate their performance. "Formal Field Service" begins with the congregant attending a Field Service Meeting, conducted by an Elder, or the Elder’s appointee. Elders are always present in the field. The Elder tells the congregants where to go that

  ---

  Page 11

  11

  day.

  The primary tool in Formal Field Service is the Watchtower literature; this is the only literature used. Each congregant is assigned a territory, and they must stay exclusively within that assigned territory. The territories are large and spread out. It is common knowledge that the congregants must use their cars to perform this service. Beyond controlling the distribution of literature, Watchtower also controls the congregant’s appearance. The congregant must observe the Watchtower’s dress code, and personal grooming guidelines when engaged in Formal Field Service. These guidelines dictate appropriate attire, and personal appearance. If a congregant does not comply with these requirements they are not allowed to participate in Formal Field Service. During Formal Field Service, the congregant must request donations for the organization.

  The Watchtower literature demonstrates that the congregant must raise the issue of donations with the public. All monies collected are remitted to Watchtower New York. Watchtower New York provides the congregations with pre-printed forms to record the hours served by congregants and the donations collected. On the day of the accident, Nunes was complying with all of these controls and guidelines established by the Watchtower Defendants. Based on these structured controls,

  ---

  Page 12

  12

  the plaintiffs assert that Nunes was acting as the Watchtower Defendants’ volunteer agent when she struck the plaintiff with her vehicle.

  II. Existence of an Agency Relationship

  The plaintiffs essentially contend that the Watchtower Defendants are vicariously liable for their injuries because Nunes was their volunteer agent pursuant to Florida’s Volunteer Protection Act

  4

  and/or common law. The Watchtower Defendants and Nunes, on the other hand, maintain that at the time of the accident, Nunes was not engaged in Field Service as their agent, but rather pursuant to her personal religious convictions. The Watchtower Defendants, and the majority, point to Nunes’s deposition testimony that she engaged in Field Service as part of the tenets of her faith. See slip op. at 4-5.

  Although Nunes’s motivation for engaging in Field Service may have been rooted in her faith, it is not at all dispositive of the issue of whether an agency relationship was in fact created between her and the Watchtower Defendants.

  The parties’ characterization of their relationship does not control the agency issue. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY , § 1 cmt. B (1958) ("[t]he relation which the law calls agency does not depend upon the intent of the parties 4 § 768.1355(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).

  ---

  Page 13

  13

  to create it, nor their belief that they have done so . . . if the agreement results in the factual relation between [the parties] to which are attached the legal consequences of agency, an agency exists although the parties did not call it agency and did not intend the legal consequences of the relation to follow."); Nazworth v. Swire Fla., Inc., 486 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1986) ("[t]he agreement’s use of a certain descriptive label for one of the contracting parties is not determinative of the actual legal relationship between the parties."); Singer v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ("A jury may infer the existence of an agency even when both the principal and the agent deny it").

  The standard for determining whether an agent is an independent contractor is the degree of control exercised by the employer or owner over the agent. More particularly, it is the right of control and not actual control, which determines the relationship between the parties.

  Nazworth, 486 So. 2d at 638 (citations omitted). Moreover, the "existence of an agency relationship is a question of fact for the jury, unless the evidence is susceptible of only one interpretation." Folwell v. Bernard, 477 So. 2d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)(citing Jaar v. Univ. Of Miami, 474 So. 2d 239, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)). The facts in the record before us, as stated supra, and all reasonable

  ---

  Page 14

  14

  inferences therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs/appellants,

  5

  demonstrate that more than one interpretation is possible in this case, making summary judgment improper.

  In view of these facts, the two cases upon which the majority relies are distinguishable and do not require affirmance of the summary judgment. In the first case, Nye v. Kemp, 646 N.E.2d 262 (Oh. Ct. App. 1994), the only issue, by stipulation of the parties, was the legal liability of the Ohio District Council of Pentecostal Churches, Inc., for the actions of a church Elder. The Ohio Court of Appeals found that the Council was not liable under a respondeat superior theory because the church had no right to control where Elder meetings were held, who held them, what topics would be covered, or any other aspects of these meetings. In contrast, in this case the Watchtower Defendants there is record evidence that control virtually every aspect of the Field Service Meetings, and the congregants’ voluntary Formal Field Service, including their appearance.

  The Watchtower Defendants go so far as to require the presence of Elders/trainers at the Field Service calls, and

  5

  Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., 826 So. 2d 256, 259 (Fla. 2002) ("When reviewing the entry of summary judgment, ‘an appellate court must examine the record and any supporting affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.’").

  ---

  Page 15

  15

  evaluate the congregants’ performances to ensure that the Watchtower Defendants’ standards are being met. Given the degree of control the Watchtower Defendants exercise, the majority’s reliance on Nye is misplaced.

  In the second case cited by the majority, Brillhart v. Scheier, 758 P.2d 219 (Kan. 1988), the material facts were not disputed.

  Father Scheier, a Catholic pastor, was driving to a friend’s house to discuss matters involving his parish. The Kansas Supreme Court, in affirming a summary judgment in the church’s favor, declared that whether a party was an employee depended on whether the organization had the right to control the employee’s work. "The employer need not actually control the work of the employee; he need only have the right to control the work." Brillhart, 758 P. 2d at 222. The court found that the church had no control over the pastor’s day to day activities, and there was no church mandate for the pastor to visit his friend. The Brillhart scenario is very different from this case. There is record evidence that Nunes’s Field Service activities were, again, under the Watchtower Defendants’ complete control. She was at the Field Service Meeting because the Watchtower Defendants dictate that these meetings must be held prior to Formal Field Service. She

  ---

  Page 16

  16

  was driving to complete the Formal Field Service required of her as a member of the Watchtower Defendants’ organizations. Furthermore, the fact that Nunes was driving her own car to leave the Field Service Meeting en route to perform Formal Field Service is not dispositive of the agency issue. It is obvious that a person required to perform this type of work in public will have to use some form of transportation. Typically, that transportation will be a person’s own vehicle. However, the existence of an agency relationship has never rested on whether the vehicle is the agent’s private car, or some form of company transportation. This is illustrated by the following employer vicarious liability cases, where the employee has not been driving a company vehicle.

  In Carroll Air Systems, Inc. v. Greenbaum, 629 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), for example, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support a jury’s finding that an employer was vicariously liable for injuries caused by an employee while driving home from a business meeting. There was evidence that the employer urged employees to attend the meeting, paid their expenses, and that "the meeting and activities thereafter were within the business interests of the employer," hence, the court concluded that in traveling from the meeting the employee was within the

  ---

  Page 17

  17

  course and scope of employment. Carroll Air Sys., Inc., 629 So. 2d at 916. Similarly, in this case, for purposes of establishing an agency relationship between Nunes and the Watchtower Defendants it doesn’t matter that Nunes was driving her personal car.

  Nunes was on her way to an activity required of her by the Watchtower Defendants. She was furthering the Watchtower Defendants’ pecuniary interests by distributing their literature and requesting donations on their benefit. The Watchtower Defendants must have known that some congregants would have to drive to their Field Service areas. Under the reasoning in Carroll Air Systems, Inc., the fact that Nunes was driving her personal car is irrelevant. There is enough evidence here to let the jury decide if Nunes was acting as the Watchtower Defendants’ agent, exposing them to vicarious liability. Likewise, in Alsay-Pippin Corp. v. Lumert, 400 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1981), an employee was driving his own vehicle to run an errand for the employer on his way home. Under common law principles of respondeat superior, the court held that the jury could properly conclude that the driver was engaged in the "course and scope" of employment, sufficient to find the employer vicariously liable for the accident the employee caused. See also Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438 so. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(employee, while at

  ---

  Page 18

  18

  mandatory training school, was acting within course and scope of employment when he drove to buy food and employer vicariously liable for injuries caused by accident during that drive under respondeat superior doctrine). Certainly, in this case there is sufficient record evidence to create a jury question on this issue, and defeat the summary judgment motion.

  In light of this record evidence, I simply cannot agree that the issue as to the Watchtower Defendants’ right of control over Nunes’s Field Service activities on the date of the accident can be conclusively determined as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment. This case presents a question for the jury in much the same manner that the issue of fiduciary duty presented a question for the jury in Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2002). There, the Florida Supreme Court held:

  [A]s to the relationships between Doe and Evans and between Doe and the Church Defendants, it is a question for the jury to determine whether a fiduciary relationship arose; the nature of that relationship; and whether as a result of the Church Defendants’ conduct, there was a breach of the Church Defendants’ duty as fiduciaries to Doe.

  Doe, 814 So. 2d at 375.

  Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent because I believe the summary judgment in this cause must be reversed and this cause remanded for a jury trial.
• 
  38

  My website: www.reexamine.org

  by reexaminer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  greetings.. i have started a project that i hope will stay online for times indefinate, even to times indefinate.

  you can find it at www.reexamine.org .. i started working on it in october and it is still a work in progress, however because of the shut down of the website located at http://quotes.watchtower.ca i felt that i should release the site in "as-is" condition, instead of waiting until it was completely finished.. currently, there isn't a lot of content in the 'wiki' section of the website.

  hopefully in the next few days and weeks that will change, however there are still programming issues that i have to work out before that can happen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Atlantis

  Many thanks for all of your hard work and assistance! Much appreciated!