Chaserious

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 790 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Chaserious

• 
  24

  In Australia, A $3 Billion Jehovah’s Witnesses Class Action Over Child Abuse looms Large

  by Scott77 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  that's the approximate headline from steve unthank's website at www.jwnews.org.

  assuming those numberous victims of sexual abuse prevail in the court and ultimately, get awarded substantial amount of compasation, what do you think will happen to the watchtower we know it today?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Well, I don't know enough about the case to express a strong opinion, Scott. But it seems to me that if you want to influence people who are currently indifferent, a case where there are victims who were actually harmed is a lot more sympathetic than one where someone possibly didn't file the right paperwork at first, but then filed it later.

  Rather than condemning Mr. Unthank. I was simply encouraging an examination of the details of the case instead of just thinking "This is a lawsuit against the Watchtower, so it must be good".
• 
  12

  Conti Case: They Cannot Win

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  just my opinion but i see nothing but defeat for the watchtower regardless of what they do.. if they appeal and fight - it could go on for years, dragging their reputation thru the mud, at the same time that the catholic church is being slammed and sued.

  they end up sharing the headlines with other religions that cover up child molesters.

  talk about bad timing.... this defeat has already hit some witlesses like a ton of bricks, emotionally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Looking at it realistically from their perspective, if they win the appeal, don't you think they would gleefully put out a press release and a comment in any media coverage about the case? One that says something like "By overturning this unjust decision, the court system has vindicated the reality that the sole person responsible for this sad case of abuse was a former associate of a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses who has since been expelled. No court has ever found the Jehovah's Witness organization to be responsible for a case of child abuse. Jehovah's Witnesses abhor child abuse in all its forms and do everything they can to protect their children from this evil."

  It seems like fighting for the chance to make statements like that one would be fairly attractive. They know dubs would read it and eat it up, seeing no reason to further investigate child abuse issues.
• 
  29

  Hate Crime against Members of a Congregation

  by cantleave in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i recieved this email from an active witness regarding "hate crimes" against members of the congregation he/she attends.

  it is interesting as to how the elders are dealing with it.. .

  for some time our hall has been suffering minor vandalism.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Weird... I thought they didn't have a problem throwing DF'D former members under the bus to outsiders. And if they don't want to report the DF'd person to police, what are they going to do if they catch him on cc video? Go to his house and stone him?
• 
  24

  In Australia, A $3 Billion Jehovah’s Witnesses Class Action Over Child Abuse looms Large

  by Scott77 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  that's the approximate headline from steve unthank's website at www.jwnews.org.

  assuming those numberous victims of sexual abuse prevail in the court and ultimately, get awarded substantial amount of compasation, what do you think will happen to the watchtower we know it today?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Hi Chaserious,

  Are you from the Mars?

  No, I'm not from Mars. Litigating at every opportunity is not always best for a cause. I recommend reading about the history of the legal battles in the civil rights movement in the United States. It's a very interesting story. The court battles and the parties who were going to bring them were very carefully selected by the NAACP legal defense fund. They only picked the best cases to fight, and fought them in a certain strategic order.

  In higher courts of appeal, once they hear what they consider to be a certain kind of case, they tend not to hear a similar case for a number of years, since the issue is considered decided. So the civil rights groups only wanted to take the best cases to the Supreme Court. Similarly the cases they picked were decided in a way calculated to be sympathetic to their cause and influence public opinion.

  The NAACP leaned hard on some blacks who were legitimately wronged because it wasn't the right time or they didn't have a great case, or it just didn't fit into the larger picture of the legal battle correctly. Imagine being told you were not eligible for a job or being denied admission to a school because of your race, and the group that is supposed to represent civil rights for your race tells you not to bring a lawsuit. But that's exactly what happened, and agree or not, the movement won almost every important civil rights case they litigated, which turned out to be a very important series of cases for civil rights.
• 
  14

  Memorial invitation

  by John Locke in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  got this email from an elder.

  makes me f*ckin sick..... .

  hi jl,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Good thing they don't know why you stopped attending. They would have to instantly stop loving and caring about you.
• 
  46

  Candace Conti v. Watchtower | March 11, 2013 | Watchtower Society Appeal Dismissed For Failure To File Opening Brief

  by jwleaks in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  edit correction:.

  the court web site lisiting reflects the following below, but we have been informed that the watchtower society has been given yet another extension until march 26, 2013.. the below post will be left as is, for those who may have wondered what happened.. .

  congratulations candace conti.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Conti's lawyer may have agreed to the extensions also. We don't know all of the facts.
• 
  32

  Jehovah’s Witnesses — An Organization?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses an organization?.

  today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.

  it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  TD: Those are good points. Anytime an action is alleged to be a tort that might be actionable in some circumstances but not others, any relevant information will be considered, which is what I was saying earlier about baptism being one thing that could be relevant.

  You are using the example of harrassment/ infliction of emotional distress. Being a member of the congregation might be a reasonable defense for a minister to show up at your door asking questions. But it's not the only defense. If you had shown up at the Baptist services the past two Sundays and spoken to the minister there, that might be a justification for the Baptist minister to call on you, even though not a member. On the other hand, even if you are a member and you tell the minister in no uncertain terms that you don't want him to do so, it could be a crime or a tort if he continues to call on you, member or not. So I was just pointing out that baptism, while relevant, is not a special talisman that gives elders additional secular legal rights.
• 
  46

  Candace Conti v. Watchtower | March 11, 2013 | Watchtower Society Appeal Dismissed For Failure To File Opening Brief

  by jwleaks in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  edit correction:.

  the court web site lisiting reflects the following below, but we have been informed that the watchtower society has been given yet another extension until march 26, 2013.. the below post will be left as is, for those who may have wondered what happened.. .

  congratulations candace conti.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  The ability to cure within 15 days is in the CA court rules, so it's not some deadline a Satanic judge made up. But of course they would believe any spin "mother" puts on it. They are not going to miss the deadline, though.

  ETA: I did not know about CCP473 motions. So maybe they will miss. But I'm sure they will go through with the appeal one way or another.
• 
  32

  Jehovah’s Witnesses — An Organization?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses an organization?.

  today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.

  it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  " a grave sin sufficient that Christians should treat them as though dead."

  Yes, but there is no requirement that a person be a member of a religion for that religion to have the legal right to make such statements. The Westboro Baptist Church makes such statements about specific non-members all the time. (e.g. U.S. soliders). For confirmation that this is legal in the U.S., read the Snyder v. Phelps case from the Supreme Court. Membership has nothing to do with it, and by proxy, baptism has no legal significance.
• 
  32

  Jehovah’s Witnesses — An Organization?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses an organization?.

  today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.

  it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  " Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subjected to public censure by Watchtower appointed men acting under Watchtower policy, and Watchtower’s right to continue this policy has been upheld over and over again when taken before US courts.

  The threshold at which Watchtower gains this right is at the moment of membership in its religious organization. "

  Yes, but nowhere in the cases that you refer to in the first paragraph above does it make the connection to a threshold that you make in the second paragraph in the above quote. The leading case, the one that is always referred to in lower courts when discussing the legality of shunning, is Paul v. Watchtower. I have read the case, and I am curious to know where you think it (or the other cases referred to) makes the connection to baptism being a threshold. As far as I can tell, the statement that "The threshold at which Watchtower gains this right is at the moment of membership in its religious organization" is entirely your own.

  In fact, the Paul case said that:

  " Providing the Church with a defense to tort is particularly appropriate here because Paul is a former Church member. Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church."

  Note that it said "particularly appropriate" because she was a member, which indicates that being a member is not what the legality of shunning turns upon. That is after the longer discussion that showed the Watchtower would be able to shun no matter what. As the court said, they don't really look at the membership structure or requirements within a church.

  Paul case available here