It would actually have to be more than just telling someone not to do business with someone. If that was the case than organizations that call for boycotts of businesses would be liable. It would have to be saying that and adding slander, such as don't do business with that person because he is an adulterer when the person is not. That would be a tort claim.
John Davis
JoinedPosts by John Davis
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
In this case anyone can have an opinion and it maybe valid for them and how they feel. But in reality in this case the only opinion that actually matters belong to the 9 justices. There can be as much speculation as people want but they will make the final decision.
-
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
OC well that is one of the questions that the justices are trying to determine if in fact there is a contract and if there is a contract who is the contract between. Just like how one of the justices asked, what is the consideration that a member gives and what is the consideration that the member gets.
The respondent lawyer made the contention that the consideration that the member gets is the association of other members, the justices will have to determine if that can be considered an appropriate legal consideration for the creation and enforcement of a legal contract.
-
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
I don't know what you know and what you don't know, so that is why I worded bit the way I did. And I understand that you are making the innuendo that because other churches filled interveners that they are all colluding together and that where applicable watchtower is a member associated with them.
But u also are making an accusation with no evidence. You make the accusation and then hope that there is evidence to back it up.
-
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 used Miranda case to show that it is not just the courts vote to reverse or affirm a lower courts decision. That how the decision is written and how barrow or broad the decision is written can affect future cases. So in this case if u win or watchtower wins, doesn't mean that the winning side will go not necessarily get out smelling like roses or that past the vote of the court everything is just commentary. The full decision really matters with its wording.
-
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
Well even when one side wins, the written decision also comes into play. The court may reverse a lower court decision but if the written decision gives instructions or narrows the ruling that is what the lower courts is going to use as precedent. Look at the case of Miranda v Arizona in the US. The supreme court reversed the conviction, but it was the written decision that affected case law for the whole country not just for the defendant.
-
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 think that they may send it back to the trial court with very specific instructions to narrow the proceedings to very specific things.
-
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
Mr Walls obviously the court did have some major questions against watchtower including if they actually provided proper notice and if there are in fact rules were those rules followed. That is why I think their decision is going to be a mix bag. I don't think either side will come out as a full winner in this case.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
You are 100% correct that is why we do have courts. And soon we will see how Canada sees it probably soon.
There have already been cases in other countries like the US who has already ruled on these matters. But that is why different countries have different laws because not every country is the same.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
There is no civil right to have someone talk to you. The civil right is that the government can't prevent you from speaking. I know you want to make the right fit the way you want it, but that is not the civil right.