Disputing the Validity and Legality of the DF/DA Announcement

by valkyrie 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  valkyrie

  Points for consideration:

  1. a. Is the "organisation" (i.e., doctrines, teachings, practices, spirit) of 2006 the same organisation that you affiliated yourself with at your accession to unbaptised/baptised publisher status some 10 - 15 - 20 years ago?

  1. b. If the organisation is substantially changed, and you abandoned your congregation before [many of ] those definitive changes were instituted, can the current "organisation" accurately be said to have the authority to disfellowship you from an entity which essentially no longer exists? [Whether the entity is an essentially different one can be concluded after an element-by-element comparison of the former and current teachings, and a determination as to whether the changes have substantially altered the conduct of affairs so as to make the current entity unrecognisable to, say, a publisher in 1960 or 19__ [your entry date here].]

  Both semantically and practically considered, have you not rather disfellowshipped the impostor organisation?

  2. a. Are you a registered officer of/shareholder in/beneficiary of the legally registered corporate bodies known as i) Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses; or ii) Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses? If you do not hold such legal status, does the local congregation have the right to announce that you are "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses?" [See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/85016/1399424/post.ashx#1399424 ]

  2. b. If the congregational announcement serves to clarify anything other than your factual, publicly verifiable affiliation with a corporate body bearing the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" (and, to quote SickofLies: "Show me the contract!"), cannot the members of the Judicial Committee and/or the WTS (in case the DF Form S77 can be produced) potentially be charged with slander since the original concept of a witness for Jehovah is a Biblical and moral one - which can hardly be appropriated (justifiably) by a corporate entity? Thus said, how can a congregation or a corporation support such a declaration with proof that you are no longer a witness for Jehovah -- involving a pact between you and your God?

  At best, an accurate DF announcement would be framed to state that the DF'd "is no longer affiliated with such-and-such Congregation," or that the DF'd is no longer under the auspices of such-and-such corporation."

  - Any refinements or clarifications from trained litigators would be appreciated....
• 

  valkyrie

  
  Note to readers: I apologise for situating this topic in the inappropriate forum! It should have been under "Beliefs, Doctrines and Practices."

  Note to Administrator: Please relocate to the appropriate forum, as convenient. Thank you!
• 

  wombat

  I reckon that his is going to be a long and interesting thread and many erudite opinions will be offered. I am continually overwhelmed by the intelligent views offered by the poster on this site.

  I left an organization in 1973 that was heavily suggesting (or teaching) that Armageddon would come within 2 years.

  I left an organization in 1973 that did not allow any form of blood fractions.

  I left an organization that did not allow any alternative to compulsory military service.

  I left an organization that was quite different to what it is today. Maybe if they then had the present day teachings I may not have left.

  So why am I still shunned?
• 

  looking_glass

  Based on your country of origin, each governmental entity and/or legal system will look at the organizational structure of a religion differently. It is my understanding that in the US, religion (in particular organized churches/religions) is looked as private membership. When you join a club, the club has rules and if you fail to meet the rules of the club, you can be denied membership and/or kicked out as a member. You cannot be denied based on age or gender or race, things such as this. However, clubs can still discriminate based on sexual preference. Therefore, the chances that someone is going to be able to successfully go after the WTBTS in US courts regarding gettind df'd or da'd is a long shot. Considering the wording is starting to change with respect to the announcement, a claimant would not be able to claim a violation of the right to privacy and/or violation of the "priest/confessor" priv. Most court rulings that you can find (if you have access to pacer or other on-line court services) indicate that the courts are not inclined to get involved due to separation of church and state. Which we all know is a joke, but whatever.
• 

  jstalin

  I think you'll have a hard time trying to make any legal case on this matter. When you join the JWs, you're fully aware of what you're agreeing to. It's a verbal contract of sorts, which are just as legally binding as written contracts.

  In my opinion, the only traction you could get on this issue is under the doctrine of disaffirmance by minors. See my prior post on the issue here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/109592/1909973/post.ashx#1909973
• 

  diamondblue1974

  2. a. Are you a registered officer of/shareholder in/beneficiary of the legally registered corporate bodies known as i) Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses; or ii) Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses? If you do not hold such legal status, does the local congregation have the right to announce that you are "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses?" [See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/85016/1399424/post.ashx#1399424 ]

  I think the term Jehovahs Witness doesnt actually imply any legal status whatsoever, in fact it purely implies a social status more than legal; the WTS argument will be that when a person joins the witnesses they are purely associated within such social context and that social entity has a choice either to accept you or not. If you toe the line then they accept you, if you dont then they reject you. The legal entities therefore will probably be kept seperate from the socio religious element.

  2. b. If the congregational announcement serves to clarify anything other than your factual, publicly verifiable affiliation with a corporate body bearing the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" (and, to quote SickofLies: "Show me the contract!"), cannot the members of the Judicial Committee and/or the WTS (in case the DF Form S77 can be produced) potentially be charged with slander since the original concept of a witness for Jehovah is a Biblical and moral one - which can hardly be appropriated (justifiably) by a corporate entity? Thus said, how can a congregation or a corporation support such a declaration with proof that you are no longer a witness for Jehovah -- involving a pact between you and your God?

  This is an interesting point actually, the risk of a lawsuit for slander is exactly why they announce 'such and such is no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses' instead of 'such and such has been in a compromising sexual liaison with a sheep and so therefore we must now not speak to him anymore!' In answer to your question however, I am not sure there would be case for slander just by simply (albeit wrongfully), appropriating biblical terms as an indication that a person no longer is to be associated as a Jehovahs Witness in terms of a membership of a socio religious group.

  DB74
• 

  Elsewhere

  You have to remember that they are not removing a person from membership with a legal entity such as the Watchtower Society. Instead they are removing your status as "one of Jehovah's Witnesses". (Note, this is the only context in which I will use an apostrophe "s" when writing the name) Remember, this is a Possessive Term meaning you are someone who stands as a witness for Jehovah, not to any legal entity or corporation.

  My take on it is that no human or corporation can go around and accuse another person of not belonging to their god. This is no different than if they were to stand on the stage and announce that you are "no longer a witness of Jesus". In the end they really have no say in such a matter since it is *you* who chooses what god you belong to, not the WTS!

  In the end, I suspect one could accuse them of slander if one still believed in Jehovah.
• 

  looking_glass

  Elsewhere - based on the wording alone, they are not stating that you are denying the existence of God (Jah) or his son (Jesus). They use to say so and so is df'd or has da'd themselves from the cong. Now it sounds like they are saying so and so is no longer a JW. As for a court determining whether a church is saying you believe or don't believe in god/christ, that is another matter. They can announce from the stage that someone is not a JW because it is like a membership. As for belief or non belief and an accusation of same, you are discussing tangible and non-tangible things. The court is suppose to follow the letter of the law, not the emotions involved in the case. Only if it is a violation of a constitutional matter, state or federal law is it suppose to be determined by a court of law. Just because you pay the fee to file your law suit does not mean that it will stand after dispositive motions.

  I am going to give you a recent example. Our firm filed a federal law suit against a large publishing company stating a number of things including libel and slander. A year ago, defendant's won on summary judgment. The court kicked the case out and fined our firm $50K. Why? Because we read the law as that libel and slander were very broad terms. However, the court determined that federal law was specific as to its definition and thus, we were under a strict compliance to meet th criteria. Meaning, if you fail to meet the standards, your case does not fall under libel or slander or fraud. The court's determined that our firm filed a lawsuit all the while knowing it did not meet the criteria and we had to pay legal fines. Now you tell me, how quick are firms going to be to take on cases when there is a good chance that they will be fined in the process. Once burned twice shy.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Sure, but the bottom line is that anyone can call themselves "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" if they believe they are.

  If someone makes a public announcement that you are not, you can simply deny this and *insist* you are. You are not insisting you are a member of the WTS or the local congregation, you are just stating your religious belief.

  Just think about all of the chaos that could come of your *insisting* that you are "one of Jehovah's Witnesses". Anyone can say that and not be lying. It would, however, be a lie for any "Jehovah's Witness" to say they are a member of the WTS... because they are not.
• 

  looking_glass

  Elsewhere - I agree with you, the title can be used and cannot be taken away. You can say whatever you want or call yourself whatever you want. You can change your legal name to become - first name Jehovah's and last name Witness. They would not be able to force you to change it.

  My confusion with respect to this thread is that it appears that people want to use the courts to pursue claims or actions against JWs for being df'd or da'd. That is impractical and would clog up the judicial system more then it already is clogged up. As for libel and slander, people have a tendency to throw those words around to freely. It is much harder to prove. I think the average person have an unrealistic view of the judicial system and how it works in the US.