by Marvin Shilmer 157 Replies latest jw friends
Some did not have much of a choice in becoming a JW if you were raised one. Some became baptized before becoming aware of the hypocrisy.
As far as going the route Marvin suggested; I figure as much as one can protect oneself from slander and harrasment by the WTS the better. Why let oneself be roughshod run over by a bunch of goons thinking they are God's gift to mankind. Make them think a little, at least I hope some of them will.
Minimus, Grow up. I feel you have a place on the board, but a thread like this is not it. Jim W. I know you and you are brilliant. In this thread it is not showing. Are emotions controlling here? Marvin, You have already won. You seem to be letting up, I hope so. If I have occasion to differ with you, I think I will do so off line. HS, Your style makes me smile, although insulting and fatal to your victims: " be wailing and snivelling like a child with a broken toy". Damn, that even hurt MY feelings, but it's always amusing. Auldsoul, When are you going to quiet screwing around and go to law school? Jst2laws
Jim W,
My question to you: Are you an attorney?
In my opinion, anyone who tries to establish their credential to give legal advice to public forum partcipants—many of whom plainly would live in states/countries where the advisor is not licensed to practice law—does so at their own peril.
If you don't know what I mean, you've proved my earlier points.
My point with marvin is that initially he implied that the California has some broad application in his effort to refute my points.
My point with you is that Marvin never asserted that the California ruling does have broad application. He merely (and correctly) asserted that it very well may have broad enough application to make applying his advice worthwhile if someone has been invited to attend a JC (which doesn't apply to your case) and they plan to attend (which doesn't apply to your case) and they want to know how to best generally protect their interests (which doesn't apply to your case).
Since on its face none of Marvin's advice could possibly be construed as contextually applicable to your case (a fact a first year law student should be aware of at a glance), why would you imagine that the relevance to your case would have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not Marvin's advice is sound? The fact that you are in school to become a lawyer is surely no guarantee you will be a good lawyer.
Your rather poorly demonstrated ability to apply rational thought to hypothetical situations in order to project likely outcomes of a specific course of action argue strongly that you will be a mediocre attorney. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that as demeaning to you. We need mediocre attorneys, too. And even mediocre attorneys manage to command decent salaries.
When you read various opinions of trial and appellate courts you get a flavor for how case citations get argued. Both judges and counsel for the opposition do exactly as I suggested, they argue a more narrow application.
However, when a state has already successfully upheld a ruling based on that finding under appeal neighboring states and states with similar legislation have a very long historic track record of favoring "broadening" the application.
I disagree that the finding would be viewed in the "narrow" sense of applicable only in child molestation/crime contexts. The finding, as Marvin has repeatedly demonstrated, is not predicated on the nature of the case. It is predicated on the underlying nature of the communication, itself. I mentioned this before. Apparently, you are either too obtuse to get the sense of why that makes a difference or you are so hell bent on trying to cast Marvin's advice in a bad light (or defend your initial casting as the correct one) that you pretend not to notice.
Also, just because the WTS lost in one case in California does not mean that they will not fight the same elsewhere with their own set of motions, all of which take months and years to get through the system.
Are you saying that because I didn't set out a timeline and the likely responses in minutiae that I am lacking in knowledge? The end result will be the same: In any state where the statute governing what constitutes ecclesiastical/clerical privilege is similar to the one in California, the eventual finding will be identical. The nature of the communication is not penitential nor clerical in nature, nor is there an expectation of privacy. Predicated on the nature of the communication, regardless of the specific cause of action, the communication will not be ruled privileged.
The fact that the California ruling held up on appeal only gives the judge a more stable basis from which to rule, making it less likely that the ruling will be appealed/overturned in his/her state.
I am tired of typing to you about it. You are either to thick to get it or you don't want to get it. You have yet to disclose a single point of the initial advice that is unsound, you are only whining.
AuldSoul
Old Goat, excellent post! Jst2laws, you're entitled to your opinion Personally, I've been involved in over 100 judicial cases and I believe that I should be able to express my opinions on this thread. And unfortunately, this thread has become an egotistical who's **** is bigger. I find it amusing when posters do give their opinions, even if it is the minority view, and they are told that their brilliance is not showing.
Minimus, you may have judicial committee experience but do you have legal experience?
Tor
No I don't. Does that preclude me from being on a thread?
No I don't. Does that preclude me from being on a thread?
Only after it's turned into a pissing contest. W
The WTS has been successfully sued in the USA for character assassination.
That's a shocker to me. Anyone have a link?
I have mentioned this many times, but I guess I'll do so again. I am in shock that no dfd jw has ever tried the route of reporting the dfing/shunning as a human rights violation through the UN. What harm would it do to try? I imagine it's free to file a complaint. Maybe it would bring some needed attention to this issue and public outcry.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
...Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
In jw doctrine, a dfd person is immoral (thieves, adulterers, etc.), according to the scripture they cite to justify shunning ("not even eating with such a man"....blah blah blah). RIGHT? Sounds like an attack upon your reputation to me.
Minimus,
I am calling you out over this statement :
Jst2laws, you're entitled to your opinion Personally, I've been involved in over 100 judicial cases and I believe that I should be able to express my opinions on this thread.
On average how many cases per year that you served as an elder did you handle?
HS
I've been involved in over 100 judicial cases
I thought that sounded high also, but he says "involved." Maybe he was turning folks in to the elders in many cases. Just kidding. How you so busy, Min?
