A Legal Problem With DF'ing?

by metatron 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  Think about this:

  When some one is df'd, they are held to be df'd
  in every congregation in the world. A record is sent
  by elders to headquarters noting the status of the
  expelled individual.

  See a problem with this?

  It strongly suggests that congregations are bound
  to the command of the Watchtower - that the organization
  is ONE entity, not a bunch of free associated congregations.
  This could be taken as proof of liability in court.

  Take note that an announcement of df'ing is made in ONE
  congregation. How do other congregations in the same
  community know the person is expelled? Word of mouth
  mostly - no other announcement is made - the Society
  likes it that way!

  What to defeat df'ing? Force the Society to admit that
  people are df'd EVERYWHERE. If you can force the issue
  enough, they'll be forced to "localize" df'ing.
  (I can talk to him, he's not in my hall!)

  In last week's WT study, they bragged about opposers
  praising the 'unity' of the organization.

  Fine, take that 'unity' and use it as a stick
  to pound them with!

  metatron
• 

  dungbeetle

  Right on Metatron

  hmmm...dare I bring that up at my upcoming reinstatement hearing?

  Har Har...

  (((board)))

  dungbeetle...cleaning up the crap.
• 

  HoChiMin

  metatron,

  Every new case sets new legal precedent, according to my attorney. He is ready to find one in my favor if I need to. I'm ready to pay as well.

  Only if the locals go on the offensive, which they are inclined to do, will an attorney be used in my case. The WT should just leave people alone if they no longer want to hear their spew.

  HCM
• 

  MadApostate

  Met:

  In both this thread and (I believe you started) the CO thread, you are acting as if you have discovered something "special", but I obviously am not following your point. What are you trying to say?

  The relationship between the WTS and Congs are unquestioned. A BOE are "agents" of the WTS the majority of the time, with the WTS vicariously liable for any negligent acts. For them not to be such would be the exception.

  As regards DFing, US Courts have consistently ruled that a religion can give the boot to any member anytime it sees fit on religious grounds. The only reason the WTS stopped announcing "reasons" was so that a DFed person would have no grounds to start a slander suit, not because such is slander, just so the WTS won't be bothered with nuisance suits.

  HCM:

  "Every new case sets new legal precedent, according to my attorney."

  Either you misunderstood your attorney (most likely), or you have a really stupid attorney.
• 

  HoChiMin

  Mad,

  It could be either one. LOL

  HCM
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello metatron,

  a good post.

  I think Madapostate makes a good point:

  "As regards DFing, US Courts have consistently ruled that a religion can give the boot to any member anytime it sees fit on religious grounds. The only reason the WTS stopped announcing "reasons" was so that a DFed person would have no grounds to start a slander suit, not because such is slander, just so the WTS won't be bothered with nuisance suits."

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
• 

  ballistic

  In England, disfellowshippings sometimes are announced at nearby congregations, when they are close, when they share a hall, or when there are relatives and friends of the person across congregations.
• 

  metatron

  Lemme try again.

  I am well aware that the first amendment protects the Society
  in this matter. I do not dispute that. What I am discussing
  here is the relationship between congregations and headquarters.

  Suppose you have two religions
  One has has strict rules enforced by threats from traveling
  inspectors appointed by the central command.

  The other is a confederation with "freely associated"
  congregations. The "leadership" merely provide general
  moral guidance - there is no clear chain of command.

  Both religions come under scrutiny for some crime committed
  by elders locally, in the U.S.

  Is one religion's "leadership" less liable?
  Does the religion with a strict central command suffer
  more examination in court? Is it an easier target for
  lawsuits because of its chain of command? Can lawsuits more
  easily travel upwards to deeper pockets?

  Now, do you understand where I'm going with this?
  What sort of organization does the Society evolve into
  if they wish to maximize their chances for survival?

  If you feel I'm wrong, then you must explain why they
  take such care in trying to insulate themselves from
  local congregations, legally - or trying to portray
  themselves as distant in responsibility ( like the
  secret instructions on df'ing forms).

  I think I'm seeing more and more hints of this problem
  in current rumors of change. The strict regime of hierarchy
  may be too expensive for a small organization that doesn't
  have the deep pockets of the Catholic church. If my theory is
  sound, then public exposure of the Society's strict command
  of local congregations could greatly inconvenience them.
  (C.O.s and df'ing)

  metatron
• 

  MadApostate

  Met:

  The very foundation of your argument is built on "sand". As I have repeatedly attempted to show here, there is NO LIABILITY CRISIS to start with.

  The only way (exception noted below) that the WTS can be "hung" by some "abuse case" is in a factual situation where an Elder/MS was a "known abuser" to the WTS, and the WTS allowed him to use his WTS position as the primary means of committing the abuse. (Exception: With the "law", one knows to never say never. There could always be a stray case somewhere that could go beyond the scenario noted above.) However, the simple fact remains that cries of "the WTS is facing an avalanche of abuse lawsuits" should be changed to "the WTS is facing an avalanche of 'nuisiance' abuse lawsuits." SOME of these may very well win! However, they will take years to work their way through the Appeals Courts. The bottom line is that at BEST/WORST (depending on perspective) the WTS may face having to pay out a few million dollars over a decade long period. The WTS may not be the Catholic Church, but a few million here and there is nothing to the WTS.

  Just because the WTS takes preventive measures to reduce lawsuits, or to control the amount of damages in "potential" lawsuits, does not mean they are facing corporate death. Every organization of any sophistication has a "risk management" program designed to eliminate or reduce as many legal liabilities as possible.

  As for the balance of your theory, I don't even know where to begin. There are so many ties between the WTS and the local Congs that even they would not be foolish enough to dispute such. The WTS ideology is based on the idea that every Cong in the whole world teaches the exact same doctrines, with the WTS repeatedly bragging about 98 or 99% of all Congs studying the same Watchtower article every week. The Org will NEVER go back to a "congregational" form of government. They know if they did, their days would be numbered.
  Any changes in WTS heirarchy will be offset by other equally controlling measures.

  TYPOS EDITED.
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Metatron,

  Thanks for the post. This few lines to tell
  you that I do agree with Madapostate comments :

  "The WTS ideology is based on the idea that every Cong in the whole world teaches the exact same doctrines, with the WTS repestedly bragging about 98 or 99% of all Congs studying the same Watchtower article every week.

  The Org will NEVER go back to a "congregational" form of government.

  They know if they did, their days would be numbered.

  Any changes in heirarchy will be offset by equally controlling measures."

  Words which give an accurate description
  of today's reality in the WTS world.

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp