What would be interesting to know is if the members of the society know how much the WTBS is spending of their hard earned dollars on exspensive laywers to cover their asses in law suits.
Looks Like the Andersons Lost in Court
by Beep,Beep 94 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
orangefatcat
How sad that the Andersons lost, but they did the right thing, At least it did get media attention and did put the WTS through the mud.
In my opinion I think that the disclosure of apparently confidental records was what made them lose the case. How sad. But there must be something they can do. I mean the WTS just can't get away with this crap.
You would think that the Judge would have been more concerned with the poor children who had or are being abused and at WTS is covering it up. There has to be a way to stick it to the Society. And that judge needs his head examined.
Yes I too agree. I can just here them (GB) in Bethel," well dear brothers Jehovah lead us to victory."
Someone give me a barf bag please.
Orangefatcat
-
Gill
One hopes that time and life will teach them that honor demands more noble things from the heart than preaching ever-changing doctrines as a manufactured means of saving their miserable lives, sometimes it demands that cowardice be put to rest and courage takes its place.
Wow! Hilary_Step! That is such a fantastic and accurate statement! Well said! I hope the asses at Brooklyn get to read that. It is one of the most important lessons in life. 'Life' is not about protecting an abusive religious cult, GB of Brooklyn!
-
-
Big Tex
HS
Your reply, as usual, is far wiser and somewhat more insightful. I apologize for losing my temper. I may be turning into a cranky curmudgeon in my old age.
Chris
-
hillary_step
Chris,
There is no need to apologize. You of all people have a right to your anger given the terrible things that happened to you, and given your experience as you tried to seek justice when you grew up.
When Grissom realizes how many people on this Board have suffered abuse at the hands of Jehovah's Witnesses, and how the WTS deliberately tried to silence them, he will either choose to disbelieve their experiences or wither with shame. Either way, it is fine by me.
As he seems to think that the WTS is above criticism in these affairs, perhaps I should relate the tale to him of how the WTS threatened to disfellowship me for reporting a MS who had been raping his daughter to the police, rather than contact them first. On the other hand, even the ghouls in Brooklyn have publicly admitted to making mistakes regarding the the way they have dealt with abuse cases, so perhaps even he will see the folly of the childish nonsense contained in his posts above.
HS
-
sf
I could have told her that. But she does not listen to anyone.
What are you getting at here? When have you spoken DIRECTLY with her? And if not you, whom did she not listen to, and how many has she "not listened to", thusfar, concerning this case?
Inquiring minds...
sKally
-
hawkaw
Go here http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA/ca1qtr2007.htm and then scroll down to the case or click here to directly read the case http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA/071/WatchtowerOpn.wpd
As I wrote to Barb, I am terribly sorry to read this. I would have hoped the defamation of character tort would have survived. I see the learned justice did not like the jurisprudence or argument that was presented by Barb's learned counsel. The Judge really keyed in on having to review the doctrines no matter what and thus, 1st amendment bars the Court. Here are some of case's highlights. All are direct quotes:
---------------------------------------------------------------Consequently, much of the analysis in the cited cases simply does not apply to the case before us.
Further, the cases relied on by the Andersons dealt with lay employees, and the statutes at issue in those cases have been applied to religious organizations only when dealing with lay employees. As general rule, religion-neutral statutes prohibiting specific types of discrimination can be applied to religious organizations where the dispute is about employees in non-pastoral jobs.
It has been uniformly held that decisions as to hiring or firing of pastors, as well as other issues regarding minister employment, are protected from court inquiry because such decisions necessarily involve questions of religious practice or governance
The basis for all the Andersons’ claims is the decision of the Church to disfellowship them, which, as explained earlier, is clearly an ecclesiastical matter. Therefore, their case is similar to the cases involving church decisions about minister employment, not to cases involving lay employees.
Other plaintiffs have attempted to avoid the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine by alleging their claims fell within the fraud or collusion exception. We have found no case in which a court has attempted to adjudicate a religious dispute on the basis of that exception. To the contrary, courts have refused to find such an exception either viable or applicable.
The allegations made by the Andersons are similar to those presented in Abrams v. Watchtower Society, supra. In that case, a former member of a Jehovah’s Witness congregation accused two of its elders of conspiring to remove him from the congregation and prevent his becoming …The court ruled that “review of the alleged ‘fraud’ in the instant case would run counter to the principle of ecclesiastical abstention … We agree with the reasoning of the Illinois court. In order to effectively review the Andersons’ claim of fraud, we would have to decide not only whether false information was used to procure their expulsion from the organization, but whether they would have been expelled in the absence of such information.
The Andersons assert that, regardless of the approach of other jurisdictions, Tennessee courts have recognized the fraud or collusion exception. In actuality, Tennessee courts have simply quoted the language from Gonzalez or Milivojevich in cases where no such exemption was even alleged.
Conclusion
Based on the reasons set out, we reverse the trial court’s actions in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the First Amendment’s protection of decision of church tribunals on religious questions. We hold that all of the plaintiffs’ claims, as alleged in the complaint, are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Accordingly, the amended complaint is dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson.
PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also see that Barb's side has to pay costs. I hate it when the Court does that especially when they do not state a reason. I had to put up with that crap in the Boer case. I hope Ed is picking up these costs for Barb.
I hope things are okay for Barb after suffering this legal loss. Let’s hope the California cases move forward and don’t get nailed by the 1st Amendment like this case did.
hawk
-
avengers
The WTBTS does not protect any child molesters.
Says a newby The WT is nice and smooth on the surface, but once you get to know the inner workings you will see their true colors. It may not be the individual, but it's the overall policy of the WT. On the surface the WT looks like a great org. but underneath they are run by evil itself. Wish it wasn't so, but the truth is not always the way you wish things to be. Andy of the pissed off at the evil-slave class.
-
lilybird
It really shows the hypocrasy of the jw organization, who claim to be no part of the world and have no vested interest in it, how they will use every legal metthod available to them to cover their lies and all the evil things they allow to thrive among them.
