by 00DAD 14 Replies latest jw friends
I searched the indexes of JWN and found a number of older threads on the subject of Class Action Lawsuits against the WTBTS for a number of things such as: Fraud, Breach of Contract, Emotional Duress, Pain and Suffering, etc.
Most of the threads are fairly old. Does anyone know if any serious attempts at this have ever been made by a qualified lawyer and/or firm?
No. It is very hard to get around their First Amendment protection. Not impossible but difficult. Besides the actual First Amendment, judges will always be conscious that it is a persecuted minority religion. Such cases seem to be succeeding in Europe under very different conceptions of Freedom of Religion. Freedom loving states such as France acknowledge that members also need protection religion.
If someone posted concerning a law suit, it is disappointing if the results were not posted.
Class action law suits are more and more restricted. All those appointments by conservative presidents have changed the law drastically.
Here's an ironic tidbit from the source:
Fraud victims typically feel overwhelmed by shame, guilt, embarrassment, and self-directed anger. Don’t blame yourself. You are the victim; the blame rests on the person who conned you. If you have made a mistake, admit that to yourself, and then move on with your life. Do not conclude that you are stupid. Remember that swindlers successfully defraud highly intelligent people—heads of State, bank managers, executives, finance managers, attorneys, and others. - Awake! July 22, 2004 (Emphasis added)
{Remember that swindlers successfully defraud highly intelligent people—heads of State, bank managers, executives, finance managers, attorneys, and others. - Awake! July 22, 2004} ..................
...........they said with a smile ......
Many have consulted attorneys, including me (and I have a much better case than most), who consistently advise it is not viable.
Barbara Anderson sued and did not prevail.
Fraud, Breach of Contract, Emotional Duress, Pain and Suffering,
The problem is often the disparity between the legal meaning of those words and what people want them to mean legally. Ex--Baptism is not a contract in legal terms, yet no matter how many hundreds of times that is explained, people don't try to hear it.
rebel8 wrote:
Baptism is not a contract in legal terms
I figured that would be true, but then why do I hear ex-JW's talk about how the WT makes baptism a legal contract?
rebe18,
This is the problem in a nutshell. There is a requirement to stop using esoteric legal phrases in Latin in most states. The legal meaning remains with the more common English term. A contract is defined as: Offer + Acceptance + Consideration. There are countless legal rules as to what offer entails, acceptance is also a detailed concept. Consideration is hard for lawyers to analyze. It means a specific legal term, not good manners.
The other problem is that people equate law with justice. The two should correlate. The reality is that law and justice correlate only on some occasions.
I was a poli sci major so I took prelaw courses. The text seemed clear and I would opine as to what the law was. I was so wrong.
To make matters worse, lawyers are pressed for time. Few will sit and explain their reactions to a client. When I've needed a lawyer who knows that I am a lawyer, the lawyer is annoyed if I ask for explanation of reasoning. I feel demeaned by the experience. They have one focus: damages.
What do you think the viability would be of a suit brought by a group of people who lost family members to the blood doctrine? Slightly better chances? Or still pretty much no chance? (this is of course assuming those bringing the suit have the money to pay for representation)
No one was forced to refuse blood. I think only former members can appreciate the psychological impact that cults have. When I view this matter, I see a valid religious belief chosen by the member. Because of my history, I know the overreaching and wanting to please your family and friends. American courts are going to stay away from such an assessment.
I wrote earlier to ignore the legal claims because of the First Amendment. We can end up in the same place by a public education campaign against high mind control by any group. Native Americans were denied the right to use peyote b/c a federal law bars its use. The federal law was neutral and applied to everyone. If the law said "Native Americans are forbidden to use peyote," the result would be different.
Simon says "punch yourself in the mouth"
Punch! "Owwww! I broke a tooth. I'll sue you!"
Moral: Don't play Simon says.
