I wish we could sue them for something
Lawyers: Can a Jehovah's Witness sue the Watchtower Society for Civil Rights violations?
by Balaamsass 46 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
neverendingjourney
Civil rights legislation, in the US at least, is designed to prevent the government from violating certain enumarted rights and/or liberties. There is no nexus between a private religion and the federal government, so the answer to your question that a civil rights action against the JWs would be thrown out before it ever goes to trial.
A little background info of general interest: http://www.constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm
If a cop barges through your door without a warrant or probable cause and beats you to a bloody pulp, you have a civil rights violation on your hands. If your neighbor beats you up because you parked too close to his car, you don't have a civil rights violation, you have an assault and battery. The key is whether there was government involvment and whether a civil right specifically extended by legislation was violated.
-
Justitia Themis
The WTBTS has gone to a LOT of EFFORT to form new multiple coorporations. Why?
They did it to avoid child abuse litigtion liability. In such litigation, a plaintiff must prove that each successive corporation "knew" about the abuse and took no steps to stop it. It's an elaborate game in which the P might be successful in proving the elders did something wrong (elders would be personally liable), but would struggle to prove that any of the other corporations knew, or should have known, and did not take reasonable steps. The P must prove his/her case (that a duty existed between plaintiff and defendant, the duty was violated, the violation caused the harm, andthe harm caused damages) at each and every link in the chain of corporations.
The WTBTS simply copied the Catholic Church's corporate scheme because it worked so well for them.
-
Justitia Themis
Civil rights legislation, in the US at least, is designed to prevent the government from violating certain enumarted rights and/or liberties. There is no nexus between a private religion and the federal government, so the answer to your question that a civil rights action against the JWs would be thrown out before it ever goes to trial.
True; however, civil rights are made applicable to private businesses via the Commerce Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
-
Band on the Run
It ruly is complex. Besides the substantive statutes or the Cosnt'l norms, civil procedural rights shape the answer. YOu need a special relationship to sue. The public in general, esp. taxpayers, cannot sue. The WT stucture, the overbearing religion that cushions itself from liability is very sad. It is so deliberative. They aren't doing anything wrong by their corporations but the WT protects itself. The rank and file are easy to pick off.
It is hard to discuss abstractedly b/c the facts are crucial. I won't practice law here b/c it would be very wrong.
The lack of transparency in their dealings makes things so much more difficult. Theocratric warfare is another issue.
-
Justitia Themis
Could Civil Rights Cases against WTBS on behalf of Child Abuse Victims (Sexual, physical emotional and blood) prevail with a larger financial return?
Besides religious exemptions, one couldn't use the Commerce Clause in reference to the above because they are not constitutionally protected civil rights.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights
Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.
For those who might be interested, here is a recent SCOTUS case regarding the intersection of the ADA (civil rights legislation) and a church.
Courts have generally believed that federal employment discrimination statutes do not apply to church employees performing religious functions. The question is whether this ministerial exception applies not simply to religious leaders, but also to teachers at a religious elementary school.
Scrolling down and reading some of the briefs is helpful.
-
Band on the Run
People were in a furor when the Salvation Army had nonSalvation Army secular workers. for decades. There was a shake up in the Salvation Army. The Board felt to fulfill their mission all Salvation Army employees had to be active Salvation Army believers. There was a strong statutte against religious discrimination. A terminated employer was laid off and a believing member hired. The Court held that the Salvation Army could protect its mission as a religoius group regardless of the antidiscrimination provisions.
Within the past ten to fifteen years, most of the earlier Supreme Court rulings have been qualified to sponsor religious accomodation and not separatism. This is a far cry from all the Warren Court pronouncements. Altho I don't see where either side is correct with its historical correctness, The majority of Catholic justices sensibilities lead to straining factors to encourage religion in the public sphere to the maximum permitted.
There may be a way to sue the WTBTS but the research would be mammoth. It is hard for me to figure out which corp is responsible for what. A regular poster from England would write about hierarchical vs. congregational religions so I read a bit about it. Most people don't realize how lwyered up they are. And people in general in America feel religions should be left alone. The marketplace of ideas is the forum to challenge them.
I don't know but I suspect almost every religion is set up this way.
-
Balaamsass
Besides religious exemptions, one couldn't use the Commerce Clause in reference to the above because they are not constitutionally protected civil rights.
This stuff started crawling around in my mind after watching a documentary on the History Channel or National Geographic. The Southern Poverty Law center took on some Anti-Clan litigation on behalf of victims and WON in THE SOUTH. I remember old prosecutions by Justice where Klan violence were prosecuted as civil rights violations as a last resort. The Clan was a non- profit group with assets I believe, and almost a religion.
The victims were denied LIFE, LIBERTY and Happyness. I was wondering if a case could be made ESPECIALLY for child victims. They are unable to "CHOOSE" the JW lifestyle. They are minors and really don't have free will. They are fully dependent on adults. Unable to enter into a contract. Data shows that at least in the US the MAJORITY choose to leave WTBTS. (PEW Stats).
Here is a recent Southern Poverty Case I googled,
Kentucky Court Upholds SPLC Victory Against Notorious Klan Leader
An appellate court in Kentucky has upheld the SPLC’s $1.3 million verdict against a Klan leader at the center of a large network of neo-Nazis, racist skinheads and other violent white supremacists.
“This case sends a message to the hatemongers of the world that they can’t unleash dangerous people upon the public and then pretend they are not responsible for the consequences,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen. “It really comes down to the biblical principle of you reap what you sow. That is the message of the ruling.”
The jury award against Ron Edwards, formerly head of the Imperial Klans of America, was part of a larger $2.5 million verdict against both Edwards and one of his chief Klan lieutenants, Jarred Hensley. Edwards appealed his share of the verdict.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the November 2008 verdict on Oct. 14.
The case was filed on behalf of Jordan Gruver, who was brutally beaten by Klansmen on an IKA recruiting mission at a county fair in Brandenburg, Ky., in July 2006. Gruver is a U.S. citizen of Panamanian-Indian descent, but the Klansmen who beat him called him an “illegal spic.”
“Ron Edwards knew that these members had obvious, dangerous tendencies,” Cohen said. “Some of them were violent criminals; one had just gotten out of prison. Yet he sent them out into the public to recruit for his organization.”
-
Justitia Themis
Klansmen who beat him called him an “illegal spic.”
He was denied life, liberty, and happiness based on his race.
A person has a constitutional right not to be discriminated against because of his/her race.
A person does not have a constitutional right not to be born into a Jehovah's Witness family. (I know that sentence has a double negative, but I wanted to maintain consistency with the prior sentence.)
In fact, the constitution would protect the JW parents' right to raise their children in accord with their religious beliefs.
-
AGuest
The ACLU is very active.
Unfortunately, I have found that the ACLU is actually very "pro" WTBTS (remember, they backed the WTBTS in Puerto Rico?), dear BOTR (peace to you!)... apparently due to the WTBTS' pioneering "pro-freedom of religion" issues; however, they're not particularly "pro" anyone whose religious rights are being violated by the WTBTS. Let me explain:
According to U.S.C. Section 248(a)(2) and California Penal Code Section 423.2(d), one can be prosecuted if they "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship..." These laws came about as a result of church bombings/hate crimes... as well assults/vandalism of abortion clinics. The California statute states that one can actually be subject to fines as well as criminal prosection by the DA.
However, I personally know of a family that was literally locked out of a KH one year when they arrived to attend the Memorial, and literally escorted out the next year... and asked to "Wait, until the [MS] seated them (it was beginning to snow!). They had already arrived and sat down, but was literally asked to get up!). They stood out there... in the cold... until they heard the music begin, after which they went back in. This apparently was not expected, due to the looks of surprise, but they were allowed to sit in the back.
Why were they treated this way? Because the entire family partakes, even the kids (the youngest was about 11 the first time, and 18 the second time)... in line with John 6:50, 51, 53-58; Matthew 19:13-15; Acts 2:39; 10:24, 44. Given that most who were called by God WERE children at the time, this really shouldn't be a surprise to ANYONE who claims a union with Christ... certainly not the so-called "Faithful and Discreet Slave" who make that claim. It shouldn't be a surprise to any others... given how old those of the GB were... supposedly when THEY were "called" (ummmm... close to 1914, which would have made them what age at the time?).
It bothered me... and the family didn't have a lot of money for an attorney... so contacted the ACLU for them just to "check" as to how they might proceed (i.e., file a claim through the ACLU, get an attorney, what...), given the law. The ACLU took some time to get back to me (the phone interviewed appeared quite shocked and sympathetic at the events AND that however the "case" was given to kept stalling...). They reviewed the law... and misinterpreted it, at first. I had to break it down FOR them (WTFrick?)! Once they "got it" and agreed that the family "may have been" subjected to some violation of their civil rights (the Memorial is a "public" meeting, held in a "place of worship" - whoever had the case interpreted it a referring to "churches" and someone they talked to at the WTBTS tried to tell them it wasn't a "church". I had to "help" them understand what goes on in a KH!). Ultimately, though, I was told that, given their involvement in Puerto Rico "and other cases" associated with the WTBTS, they had "decide[d] to decline involvement due to a potential 'conflict of interest.'"
I was floored. What I learned is that the ACLU is apparently interested in civil rights violations SO LONG AS the violator isn't someone they support. I didn't think that mattered, but... apparently, it does. My friends are "small beans." Too small, apparently, for the ACLU to risk "offending" their much larger client (the one who often keeps them on the map and makes them relevant).
I personally... and professionally... don't think it SHOULD matter - a civil rights violation is a civil rights violation... no matter WHO'S doing it. But, well, who am I?
Religion's "veil" is thick, dear ones... apparently pierced only when enough [former] children step forward about things like sexual abuse. Other abuse that they may be subject to... apparently not so much.
Peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA