D8TA - BREAKING MY SILENCE!

by clarity 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Anony Mous

  You can sue, anyone can sue. You could show the judge what such an announcement implies (esp. with the mentally diseased comment) and as poster said, simply dragging each individual through court is in itself expensive (as poster says, 8-12k in lawyers is not unusual).

  This is civil court, not criminal nor is this a free speech issue. You just have to prove what you say beyond the preponderance of the evidence (meaning it has to pass the test of "probably" being true). WTBTS doesn't want any precedent in civil court in regards to that.
• 

  ziddina

  Ah, ha ha ha!!!

  The old, "If it won't work in criminal court, it sure might work in civil court..."
• 

  rebel8

  Barbara Anderson sued for this. You can check this forum for the unsuccessful results of that.

  That seemed to have not been the point for D8TA. He stated he had the financial means and interest in dragging elders through court even if he lost. For him it was financially and personally worthwhile to pursue a case that he expected to lose. That is not the same as people wanting to sue and needing to win in order to offset legal fees.

  Cases such as these are not always taken on contingencies as people often believe. You have to pay legal fees as you go, $200 per hour.

  anyone can sue

  If a judge approves your lawsuit.
• 

  Anony Mous

  Anderson and other cases I read sued based on their first amendment rights. The decision was basically "Even if it ain't right, we can't force people to like someone, reinterpret their holy books or make them stop believing certain parts of their religion".

  There are custody cases where the judge basically said "You can believe that but don't tell your kids that about their parent" and even custody cases where extensive JW literature about blood transfusions, college and shunning has been brought in and eventually the court decided to give custody to the ex-JW.

  I haven't read any personal (civil) cases based on libel or slander but given the recent literature it should imho at least come to a hearing. Also, few lawyers (and even ex-JW) know what the religion actually teaches and it's hard to know when you're fresh out what exactly was wrong and dangerous about certain teachings. Some take years to realize that blood tranfusions are not as dangerous as the WTBTS makes it seem.