Just look at watchtower v Stratton there were some 25 amicus curiae briefs field with the court including from the ACLU, Gun Owners of America and the Center of Individual Freedoms. Does that mean that all 25 of those organizations are in bed with each other. Or was it that they all had an interest in the case and wanted the court to hear their argument on the case.
John Davis
JoinedPosts by John Davis
-
13
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
by lastmanstanding inchristian legal fellowship (clf) seems to have a new member.
the jehovah’s witnesses aka the watchtower.the membership list does not seem to be public, but i am sure that with enough inquiries from the public -that clog the arteries of their email server- we can get at the truth.just like the watchtower affiliation with the un, it seems now the watchtower has affiliated with trinitarians.the clf brings legal action on behalf of the tower.. .
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57503f9022482e2aa29ab3af/t/59d6a60ba8b2b09201dd26bf/1507239436646/clf+-+wall+-+intervener+factum.pdfhttp://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2017/8/10/clf-applies-to-intervene-at-scc-in-religious-autonomy-caseto be a member with the clf, the watchtower... "must be able and willing to sign the statement of faith...."http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/new-page/see item 2 of the clf "statement of faith"http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/statement-of-faith2 "there is one god, eternally existent in three persons: father, son and holy spirit.".
-
-
-
13
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
by lastmanstanding inchristian legal fellowship (clf) seems to have a new member.
the jehovah’s witnesses aka the watchtower.the membership list does not seem to be public, but i am sure that with enough inquiries from the public -that clog the arteries of their email server- we can get at the truth.just like the watchtower affiliation with the un, it seems now the watchtower has affiliated with trinitarians.the clf brings legal action on behalf of the tower.. .
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57503f9022482e2aa29ab3af/t/59d6a60ba8b2b09201dd26bf/1507239436646/clf+-+wall+-+intervener+factum.pdfhttp://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2017/8/10/clf-applies-to-intervene-at-scc-in-religious-autonomy-caseto be a member with the clf, the watchtower... "must be able and willing to sign the statement of faith...."http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/new-page/see item 2 of the clf "statement of faith"http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/statement-of-faith2 "there is one god, eternally existent in three persons: father, son and holy spirit.".
-
-
John Davis
When someone files an amicus curiae, they are not filing it to be the "friend of a party" but they are filing it to be the "friend of the court". If you actually read watchtower brief in the Jimmy Swagger case they don't make reference to that ministry till the last page and when they did it was in passing. The purpose of the brief was to give a different prospective to the court.
-
13
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
by lastmanstanding inchristian legal fellowship (clf) seems to have a new member.
the jehovah’s witnesses aka the watchtower.the membership list does not seem to be public, but i am sure that with enough inquiries from the public -that clog the arteries of their email server- we can get at the truth.just like the watchtower affiliation with the un, it seems now the watchtower has affiliated with trinitarians.the clf brings legal action on behalf of the tower.. .
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57503f9022482e2aa29ab3af/t/59d6a60ba8b2b09201dd26bf/1507239436646/clf+-+wall+-+intervener+factum.pdfhttp://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2017/8/10/clf-applies-to-intervene-at-scc-in-religious-autonomy-caseto be a member with the clf, the watchtower... "must be able and willing to sign the statement of faith...."http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/new-page/see item 2 of the clf "statement of faith"http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/statement-of-faith2 "there is one god, eternally existent in three persons: father, son and holy spirit.".
-
-
John Davis
You do understand how interveners in Canada and friend of the court (forget how to spell the Latin term) in the US work. These are entities that don't have any actual standing in a case but have an interest in their own right, and they want to be heard by the court. They file a petition with the court to give them the right to be heard in the matter. They don't have any connection with any of the actual parties of the case.
From Wikipedia:
Intervenors are most common in appellateproceedings, but can also appear at other types of legal proceeding such as a trial.
In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to this however (for example, under subrule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question then the attorney general of any province or territory, or of the federal government, may intervene "as of right", i.e. without the need to be granted leave to intervene).
Courts will tend to allow an application to intervene if the applicant will provide a different perspective on the issues before the court, without expanding those issues.
Intervenors are permitted in criminal matters as well as civil matters. However, courts sometimes express concern in allowing applications for intervention in criminal matters where the applicant will make arguments against the position of the accused. It sometimes is seen as unfair that the accused in a criminal matter be required to meet arguments from sources other than the prosecution.
There are several distinct reasons why someone might wish to intervene in a proceeding:
- if the proposed intervenor is currently a litigant in a case with legal issues similar or identical to the case at hand;
- if the proposed intervenor represents a group of people who have a direct concern in the legal issues raised in a case (for example, if the case involves deportation of a particular individual, an application for leave to intervene might be made by an interest group for the rights of refugee claimants);
- if the proposed intervenor is concerned that the court's decision in a particular case might be so broad as to affect the proposed intervenor's interests; in other words it would be an intervention to ensure that the court's ruling does not have "accidental" unintended effects.
It is often said that the role of intervenors is to "assist" the court in making a just decision on the dispute at hand. While it is true that judges sometimes do indicate that intervenors have been of aid to the court in reaching a decision, the use of the word "assist" can be seen as misleading in that it implies the intervenor is acting altruistically. In general, the goal of the intervenor is to influence the court in making its decision, not just to "assist" the court.
Canadian courts (also courts in UK) use the term "amicus curiae" in a more limited sense. Generally, in Canada, an amicus curiae is someone who has been specifically commissioned by the court to provide a viewpoint which the court believes is necessary and otherwise lacking. By contrast, an intervenor is someone who has applied to the court to be heard on a matter. For example, the Quebec Secession Reference (a case in the Supreme Court of Canada) had one amicus curiae and several intervenors
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
John Davis
The appellant didn't decide what parties filed factums in the case. The parties filed them with the court and the court decided what factums they would consi
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
John Davis
During the arguments, it seems like the court has some main issues with Mr Walls' arguments.
First is the court kept trying to reconcile the argument that he possed that there doesn't need to be a significant civil or property right needed in order for there to be a justiciable question to be answered. Mr Fedder kept on bringing up 3 paragraphs from a UK Supreme Court case, but then one of the justices asked him how he can reconcile that argument when the preceding paragraph and subsequent paragraph is framing the argument in the context of a trust case, where there is a legal property right at stake. One justice even questioned if you are calling the association a contract then what is the consideration that the congregation gives to the members and what consideration does the member give to the congregation. The justice was saying that without the consideration on both parties there cannot be a contract.
Second, the court seemed to have a problem with trying to determine what is the limit that Mr Walls is suggesting should be the limit. One of the justices even talked about how family relationships are important and vital parts of one's lives but that the courts cannot intervene even in those types of cases if one person doesn't feel that they are being shown enough love by another family member. The court would have to make a delineation that this level of interaction would be sufficient to bring a claim but then this level of interaction doesn't. I just don't see the court making that kind of line in the sand.
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
John Davis
I agree with OC that the justice seemed concerned with if members know the rules of the organization for a fair hearing to be conducted.
I still think that Mr. Walls attorney had a much steeper hill to climb to win before this court and the oral arguments but I think that the ruling will be a mixed bag.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
Yes poopie stopping someone from talking can be a violation of civil rights, but it isn't that easy to make the comment that it is a violation of civil rights. First depending on the country civil rights can only be violated by the government and not a private person or private organization. To give an example if you work for a company and they say you can't go on social media and speak disparagingly against the company as they deem it, that they will fire you. That is preventing freedom of speech but that is perfectly legal, at least in the US. Different countries may or do see it differently but that is why details matter.
The second thing you have to realize is you can't sue because someone else's rights are being violated. Look at the US during the civil rights movement, a Caucasian person couldn't sue the government because an African American's right was being violated. That Caucasian person wouldn't have standing to fight that violation, only someone who has the right to remedy could file the claim. So in this case if another member of the congregation felt their freedom of speech right was being violated , that person would have to file the claim, not Mr Walls. Mr Walls would assist or even pay for it but he can't initiate the claim for that person.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
Poopie your argument would then be a violation of the other congregation's members civil rights not the civil right of Mr Walls. And you cannot sue over the violation of someone else's right because then you have no standing, your, not the one being harmed and the remedy wouldn't be directed to you.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
I have not watched the video yet. But I have read the documents including the intervene briefs filed by the outside groups. The summary lists the questions that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider and to answer.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
The case before the Canadian Supreme Court is actually whether civil courts even have the right and authority to hear cases and resolve disputes in voluntary organizations.