Extreme shunning? This is simply a matter of choosing to associate with someone or not. Any person has the civil right to choose their associates. Whether a person chooses their associates through some formal or informal arrangement is immaterial to the principle involved. If a person doesn't share your core values, they could be nothing more than a bad associate.
http://www.atlassociety.org/family-relationships-objectivism-objectivist-ayn-rand
Many people are indoctrinated with the belief that we must automatically love family members simply because they are family. This is the view expressed in bromides like "They're still family" or "Blood is thicker than water." This view is not compatible with the trader principle, since we may not gain any values from certain family members, and hence may not love—or even like—them.
I heard a rumor there are family member(s) that don't associate with you. If this is true, the reason involved goes beyond "not gaining any values." You're a slanderer. There are two types of slander;
1. Concocting false stories, spreading outright lies about others.
2. Exploiting the mistakes of another because of ulterior motives, malicious intent.
You do both. Even people on this forum have acknowledged this fact.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/221719/1/Read-a-story-of-child-neglect-and-abuse-among-JWs-in-S-Africa-that-was-sent-to-me
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/222166/1/Chain-of-correspondence-with-Society-regarding-pedophilia
"Hi everyone
I have been given permission by Barbara Anderson to relay some interesting correspondence related to the Society's negligent approach to child abuse.
As I said, it's impossible to verify the correspondence - but if authentic, it is disturbing."
Cedars
If a person will deliberately concoct false information or knowingly feed off the lies of others, they do not find stories of abuse, "disturbing." Anyone with a shred of common decency can see through the "but if authentic, it is disturbing" crapola and Mr. Ceder's and Mrs. Anderson's rotten underwear. They find such stories salacious, savory, satisfying, delightful, ear-tickling and host of other words that can be used, but "disturbing" is not one of them.
These are undoubtedly persons that are jaded and desensitized to the abuse of children and will exploit these and other crimes to psychologically assault innocent persons. Your attack on the Watchtower Society is a lost cause.
No person in the Watchtower Society forces accountability on local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's not their purpose. There's no point in such a thing from a scriptural or secular standpoint.
For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart. And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting. Hebrews 4:12, 13
There's three things a person can expect from others.
1. Appropriately respond to others in immediate harm.
g85 1/22 p. 8 Child Molesting—You Can Protect Your Child
First, the child—and other children too—must be protected from any further abuse. This must be done, whatever the cost.
2. Obey the law.
http://www.jw-media.org/gbl/20071121.htm
We do not condone or protect child molesters. Our elders expel unrepentant sinners who commit this crime. Congregation elders comply with child abuse reporting laws. (Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1) We do not silence victims. Our members have an absolute right to report this horrible crime to the authorities.
3. Set reasonable boundaries that prevent a potential criminal from acting on impulse.
http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm
“For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer [full-time missionary of Jehovah’s Witnesses] or serve in any other special, full-time service.”
This common sense approach to crime in general is enforced at the local level in congregations. There are many non-profit organizations that host activities where parents are expected to supervise their children. Organizations with this social structure that exists with Jehovah's Witnesses generally don't have a child abuse policy aside from what may be required by law.
Nothing you've said has ever had any merit in a court of law.
Vicki Boer vs. Watchtower Society
The second witness proposed by the plaintiff is Barbara Anderson, who was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York from 1954 until her recent disfellowship (ejection from the faith). The plaintiff proposed to elicit evidence from Ms. Anderson as to her knowledge of how sexual abuse of children is dealt with within that religion and of cover-ups of abuse within that society. Most of Ms. Anderson’s proposed testimony would be hearsay. The plaintiff argued it would be admissible as similar fact evidence that the actions of the defendants in this case was part of a design, rather than negligence.
The proposed evidence from Ms. Anderson fails this test on every front. First, it is not logically probative of any issue before me. Whatever may have been Ms. Anderson’s personal experience with the Jehovah’s Witness faith, and whatever information she may have gleaned about how child abuse cases were dealt with elsewhere, she has no evidence whatsoever about the Toronto or Shelburne congregations or any of the individuals in this case. Further, even her information about Watch Tower generally relates to that organization in the United States. There is nothing about her evidence that would assist in the very specific findings of fact I am required to make about what happened in the case before me.
What is clear from the document is that the official policy of the church was to report child abuse cases to child welfare officials. Further, the policy advises that elders as ministers have a positive duty to ensure that child abuse is reported. Although the policy suggests it is permissible to require the offender or family members to report the matter to their own physician who would then have a duty to report, the policy also emphasizes the need for the elder to follow up to ensure that the reporting in fact occurred.
You were disfellowshipped because you're a slanderer. Your campaign constitutes stalking and harassment. Stalking is closely related to crimes punishable by law. This mindset is typically associated with some bitter person that lives a bleak existence. The fact that you seek intervention, contact with your former brethren (who have informed you they want nothing to do with you) through unscrupulous means, starting with the lawsuit you filed (that was rejected) for your disfellowshipment is evidence of this. In the United States, a person can sue for practically anything. There are no statutes or filters set up to protect others as with criminal law. Civil liability is rife with fraud and abuse in the United States and inasmuch, the higher courts generally don't sympathize with judgments that are a result of negligence or discrimination.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/nvaa99/chap21-2.htm
Stalkers, by their very nature, want more. They want contact. They want a relationship with their victims. They want to be part of their victims' lives. And, if they cannot be a positive part of their victims' lives, they will settle for a negative connection to their victims.
If you do believe shunning should be “outlawed” (something that will never happen), this is even more evidence you're a textbook stalker. You can't force a person's friendship. If any of Jehovah's Witnesses (including your family) were to communicate with you, this is all they'll tell you.
