BIGGEST SCANDAL OF ALL!!!!!!!!!!! (page 2)

garybuss

Here in contract law 101 we learned that a minor (under 18) can sign a contract and it is binding on the other party if the second party is over age 18. It is not binding and can not be enforced on the under age 18 party.

However when both parties are over age 18, the contract (if still in place) is binding and enforceable on both parties. So, if I comply with elements and duties in the contract and have not asked for the contract to be voided by age 18 and if I comply with elements and duties in the contract after age 18, I am deemed to have accepted the contract and I am obligated to comply with the terms and conditions in the contract.

I'm not an attorney but I have taken contract law 101. South Dakota, United States.

IreallydidwalkoutofaKH

You know what yknot, you make a good point. I feel though, that to someone on the outside that may make sence. Until you prove to an outsider just what they do if a child does not go out in service. First, adults will call the child names(irregular publisher). Then they will restrict them from social activities(participating in the school, having parts at assemblies, priveledges associated with those in good standing...parking lot attendents at the Memorial) It would be easy to prove to a jury that a child is turning in time becauce they have to, not becauce they are choosing to!

IreallydidwalkoutofaKH

Wow...garybuss thank you for that infomation. I could never figure out how this df'ing thing could stay put. That does make sence though. The reality is these laws are not just for religion but for other aspects as well. Which someone underage needs to work out a contract. Let me present this though.....what really is the contract. Saying yes at the baptism. If so would a contract of any sort have to explain the terms of release. That the contract of any sort would have to say....either you can never leave..or you may be released if you discontinue by the age of 18, or what ever the legal age is.

garybuss

Hi Ireallyetc,

You wrote: "Let me present this though..... (1)what really is the contract. Saying yes at the baptism. If so (2) would a contract of any sort have to explain the terms of release. That the contract of any sort would have to say....either you can never leave..or you may be released if you discontinue by the age of 18, or what ever the legal age is."

1. Contracts can be verbal or written. A contract by nature is an agreement. Proof of a verbal contract is realizing benefits resulting from the contract and compliance with the terms of the agreement. With the Witness baptism contract, the proof of the acceptance of the contract is not the baptism or the verbal agreement, but the accepting of "privileges" reserved for only baptized members, such as accepting an appointment. Once that's done, that's proof of the contract.

2. Think about a marriage contract. Similar in many ways to the Witness baptism contract. A marriage contract does not require disclosures of any kind, it all legal, and it's all a verbal agreement except for one piece of paper at the court house saying there is an agreement. Two people can enter it but it takes a judge to end it.

Witness baptism lacked disclosure for sure but that error is fixed with the new book released at the conventions this summer. With that book as a pre-baptism item to study, new converts will go in with a pretty good idea of the scope of their decision. The Witnesses are rare, in my experience, as a religion making an act of faith into a binding legal contract, but that's what they have done, and it's legal.

Of course there is a good way to leave the Witnesses. Just walk away. I did it. Nobody stopped me. Of course there were some people who shunned me because of it, but they are not important to me and I'm better off without them all. Once they shun or snub me, their case file is closed.

There's what? Like 7 billion people on the planet? Many, maybe most, of them I've met, are nice. I'm not gonna grieve over a handful of jerk Witnesses. This life is the real deal. This isn't a dressed rehearsal.

JimmyPage

I got baptized at 16. Legally that doesn't count then does it? Awesome!

IreallydidwalkoutofaKH

Thank you for such a detailed explanation. I really liked your example of how this is similar to a marital agreement. That is true. And also excepting the priveledge of being a witness showed compliance as well. I want to make this clear.....I do not disagree with you on that explaination. Although unfortunately many of us did not approach bapticism as a priveledge but rather an expectation to show appreciation to Jehovah in recognition of what Jesus his son did for us. Giving up after school sports, proms and an education to preach door to door seems more like a sacrifice than a priveledge. But would you agree that your explanation does not explain when a child is bapticed and then is disfellowshiped as a minor. Example: I live in California here in the US. One is not an adult until 18. Would you agree that if a child was bapticed at 15 in California and then Disfellowshiped at the age of 17 that would be illegal or void. Just wanted to ask, this is as deep as anyone has explained this to me.

garybuss

You wrote: "Would you agree that if a child was bapticed at 15 in California and then Disfellowshiped at the age of 17 that would be illegal or void."

I don't know about California. Here in South Dakota a religion may baptize, disfellowship, and shun at any age and it's legal. The religious business can't enforce a contract with a person under 18 years of age in court.

First, remember the Watch Tower Corporation isn't doing any shunning. If you call them, they will talk to you. It's your friends and relatives who you're having the problems with, not the Watch Tower Corporation. I believe you will find the Witness people doing the shunning and snubbing will say that behavior is a "personal decision", and not connected to the Watch Tower Corporation.

I have an older copy of the legal packet sent from Watch Tower Legal to those who threaten to sue the Watch Tower Corporation over the shunning policy and specifically shunning of children baptized as minors. Anybody who wants a new personal copy can get one easily by just writing a certified letter to Watch Tower Legal threatening to sue over the shunning issue.

The Witnesses have some of the best attorneys in the country working for them and a billion bucks in the bank to hire any third party help they want. They don't just know about disfellowshipping laws, they wrote the applications of the laws and they own the court precedents to back up their policies. Bought and paid for with the nickles and dimes sent in by the kids they will someday shun.

This isn't some back lot home made religion. It's a billion dollar big business, one of the big religion based business success stories in the country, and they'll either beat ya in court or they'll break ya. They just laugh at people who come after them about shunning. The Watch Tower Corporation keeps, or tries to keep, all dirty work at a third party level.

You might enjoy taking some contract law classes. Life is full of contracts. It's a beneficial education and useful all through life.

Tuesday

I asked this question before, they just blame the parents for letting their kid get baptized.

IreallydidwalkoutofaKH

Well that is what I was looking for. Just to understand what is going on with the policy. You know maybe I will take a contract class. It shows just how affective someone in the know can manipulate things. Thank you very much for that information. That pretty much cleared that up for me. Just one last question...Do you think that it may be that most people understanding what you just explained may try to just sue the Judicial Commity itself. I believe that they have rigid rules from the WT, and they would have to follow them to the T, to stay in good legal position. My experiences with the elders is that they do make quite a few fundamental errors when dealing with issues. This is not really a post to get people to sue. But rather to find a way to get the congregations to except responsibility for the problems associated with disfellowshiping rather than just an individual minor.

garybuss

You wrote: "Do you think that it may be that most people understanding what you just explained may try to just sue the Judicial Commity itself."

I'm not sure. I'm not aware of a successful suit against the Society on the shunning issue. If there is a successful case, it sure hasn't affected the shunning policy.

Rather than sue the judicial committee, I'd send them a thank you card.

All my issues relating to Witness shunning and snubbing has to do with regional Witness acquaintances and Witness relatives. I don't have any problems with the Watch Tower Corporations, or with the Kingdom Hall businesses. Those are immaterial and inconsequential to me. All my complaints have been with the Witness people who have disrespected me and my family.

I wouldn't sue any of them. Every day I can stay out of court is a good day. I don't really like paying attorneys for no good reason. In the first place, I'm glad the Witnesses shun me. I wouldn't want them to stop that. Witnesses shunning me is the best thing they ever did for me and my family.

Good thread! Keep up the good job!

BIGGEST SCANDAL OF ALL!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this