Another highly distorted answer.
Lawyers: Can a Jehovah's Witness sue the Watchtower Society for Civil Rights violations?
by Balaamsass 46 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Justitia Themis
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.'"
If they have a conflict, or even a potential conflict, ALL attorneys--even government agencies--are required to turn down the case REGARDLESS of the merits of the case.
In the Puerto Rico case, they are working on behalf of the WTBTS's rights. In your friends case, they would be working AGAINST the WTBTS. They most certainly did have a conflict-of-interest issue because they could use the privileged information they obtained in one case against them in the other case.
It had nothing to do with the ACLU valuing one group over another.
-
AGuest
Another highly distorted answer.
Since it came directly after, I must assume you're referring to my response, dear BOTR (peace to you!). If so, then I must ask, distorted in what way... and how many claims have you known the ACLU to come against the WTBTS on? In fact, didn't they also support them when a pedophile wanted to attend meetings where children would be present, in violation of a court order? I mean, I totally get freedom of religion... and absolutely support it. I just think... and would argue (successfully, I think)... that that "freedom" knife should... MUST... cut both ways...
If they have a conflict, or even a potential conflict, ALL attorneys--even government agencies--are required to turn down the case REGARDLESS of the merits of the case.
Really, dear JT (peace to you!)? That's interesting. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that, given the purpose of their existence, all they needed to do was create a screen/firewall/cone of silence (aka "chinese wall" but that term is offensive, even to me) and isolate whichever attorneys are working on each, and all files/information, from one another. In fact, the attorneys would even be working in the same department, as one group/set would be providing support for... while the others are pursuing a claim against.
Based on my own experience, government agencies (and even large law firms, sometimes) operate this way. For example, in the area of Fair Employment and Housing. What I hear you suggesting is that if, say, the Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing is representing a claim of employment discrimination for a landlord who has been discriminated against at work, they can't also represent a tenant with a claim of housing discrimination against that same landlord. I don't think that's the case, however. I could be wrong, but I think they have to pursue a claim of discrimination, regardless of whatever other claims they may be involved in with the parties. If not... well, then, what truly is the point? Anyone with an open claim can just go out and discriminate willy-nilly, with no fear of prosecution because, well, there's a conflict of interest. Again, I could be wrong... but I don't think so.
In the Puerto Rico case, they are working on behalf of the WTBTS's rights.
Yes. The right to freedom of worship... for them, by means of the magazine "work." There was no law on the books specifically for that, but only the encompassing freedom of speech/religion. However most of the PEOPLE there didn't WANT to be accosted by JWs. Which is why Puerto Rico wasn't allowing it; however, their restriction violated JWs civil rights.
In your friends case, they would be working AGAINST the WTBTS.
They would. But you're suggesting that they should sit still and LET the WTBTS violate OTHERS civil rights. Which I don't think they're supposed to do. While I understand the technicalities of conflicts of interest, again, I also understand that there are ways around them... and certainly when it comes to the protection of civil rights. There has to be. No?
They most certainly did have a conflict-of-interest issue because they could use the privileged information they obtained in one case against them in the other case.
Ummmmmm, no. In fact, they CAN'T. That is the purpose of a "screen/firewall/ethical wall," dear one. In vary many industries, including law and government.
It had nothing to do with the ACLU valuing one group over another.
Okay.
Peace to you, dear JT!
SA, on her own...
-
Cagefighter
In my professional experience (not as an attorney or CPA) piercing the corporate veil is only relevant when trying to execute a judgement. For example, I sue Bob's Auto Repair, Inc for a million dollars because the blew up my Million dollar Rolls Royce.
If Bob's Auto Repair, Inc writes me a check for a million than there is nothing to consider with "piercing the corporate veil". They paid their judgement.
However, if Bob walks out of court, refuses to pay me and hangs a closed sign in the window only to reopen as Bob's Auto Repair II, Inc the next week, then we have to look at piercing the corp veil. (Yes, I have seen this many times with small businesses)
Generally, a judge won't do this unless either A) the corporations shareholders/owners behaved criminally while damaging the complaintant or B) Treated the corporations property "as their own" and not the corporations property when dissolving the corp.
For example, if Bob's Auto Repair, Inc had 500k worth of tools, assets, and inventory and he sold it and paid 500k of the judgement and dissolved the corp properly, a court is very unlikely to pierce the corp veil. My judgement basically bankrupted the corp, put him out of biz.
However, if Bob blew the car up while using it as a mobile meth lab or just took all his 500k worth of assetts home and moved them into the new shop then the court is more likely to pierce the corporate veil. Bob didn't close out the company's biz, he basically looted his own corporation.
So, in short your corporate veil question is the cart and your grounds for bringing suit against the WTBS is the horse. If you sued the society and won I am sure they have the assets to cover it. By piercing the corporate veil you are asking to hold the personal shareholders financially responsible for any judgements. Piercing the corp veil is only about civil law, not criminal. If you break the law, you break the law whether you are working for a corp or walking down the street. Unless, your in American and a Defense contractor or Oil company (tongue-in-cheek)
-
Justitia Themis
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that, given the purpose of their existence, all they needed to do was create a screen/firewall/cone of silence (aka "chinese wall" but that term is offensive, even to me) and isolate whichever attorneys are working on each, and all files/information, from one another. In fact, the attorneys would even be working in the same department, as one group/set would be providing support for... while the others are pursuing a claim against.
You are wrong. Usually, they can represent (and use a firewall) if they have the signed, written consent of both parties. Do you really think the WTBTS is going to consent? And it is not a case of merely creating a firewall. They have to protect all information or be subject to a malpractice claim. That means the computer systems must be screened and locked, and even accidentally leaving a document in the lunchroom that one of the adverse attorneys might see can leave you open to suit. That's why the vast majority of law firms will NOT take these cases even if both parties want to consent. Just the act of firewalling is a pain in the patooty.
The other relevant issue is how adverse are both parties, or how adverse might they end up. In your Fair Housing example, employment discrimination and landlord-tenant are not even relatively close forms of law, so yes, something like that would be much more workable.
As you can see AGuest, it's not as clear cut as you thought, and impugning bad motives to the agency was likely a tad bit harsh. I really don't think your friends are "victims." The agency had very real and, I think, compelling reasons for their actions. That should come as good news to your friends.
They most certainly did have a conflict-of-interest issue because they could use the privileged information they obtained in one case against them in the other case.
Ummmmmm, no. In fact, they CAN'T. That is the purpose of a "screen/firewall/ethical wall," dear one. In vary many industries, including law and government
I should have been more clear. Of course they can't purposefully use it. I meant they might accidentally see that information and use it, e.g. my lunchroom hypothetical. Even if they don't intend to use it, if it's in their brain, they can't wipe it out, and it will affect their decision-making. Hence the need for signed, written consent to relieve the firm of liability should the inevitable accident happens.
Lastly, why are you "on your own?" What does that mean?
-
AGuest
Sigh (peace to you all!). The question is/was: Can a Jehovah's Witness sue the Watchtower Society for Civil Rights violations?
One doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that the answer is, yes. One can. Because virtually anyone can sue virtually anyone... for virtually anything. All one has to do is file a complaint. That is "suing." And one can certainly file a complaint for [alleged] civil rights violations. And unless it's completely frivolous on its face (causing a judge to throw it out/refuse to even consider it)... it will be considered, even if only cursorily (i.e., it may end up being dismissed on summary judgment).
The issue, however, is... can they sue and WIN? That's something else entirely. And, statistics/odds/chances aside, that can only be determined if the case is brought. If one doesn't BRING a case... one cannot know if one can WIN a case. Before one should even consider what the outcome might be, however, one might need to consider whether one can afford to BRING a suit in the first place. Because doing so can be expensive. Unlike criminal cases, counsel is not necessarily provided (under California's "Gideon Law", one could be. Depends.). If one cannot afford it, then there's the potential to bring a claim through government and/or certain watchdog agencies (such as the ACLU). What I learned, however, is that one shouldn't assume (as I did) that simply because someone's civil rights have BEEN violated the watchdogs group that exist for the very purpose of fighting, suing for, eliminating incidences of, and seeking damages for harmed persons... will do so. Apparently, it depends not just on how many "beans" you have... but how big or small your "beans" (i.e., YOU) are. Hence, my "highly distorted answer."
99% of the cases against religions that result in damages (usually via settlement) are based on some underlying CRIMINAL matter (i.e., child abuse, sexual harassment, tax evasion, etc.); civil/civil rights matters alone simply don't carry the same weight. Why? Because no one in the government/judicial system wants to find themselves having fought "against God." It's very similar to domestic violence some years ago (and often today, as well): the very spouse the police were trying to protect will turn on them for "hurting" their abusers. Same with religion... and the powers that be don't want to get involved in telling people what to BELIEVE/not believe... or what "God" says a religion SHOULD/should not do... only to have those same people turn around and accuse THEM of violating their "freedom of religion" ("I can drink all the red kool-aid I want if I want... and you can't stop me... 'cause I'm doing 'God's will'"!).
When a religion breaks the LAW, however... there is some recourse. Especially when the violation is criminal in nature (which is why I thought my friends' concerns... which involved CRIMINAL conduct, according to the statute... should have been of some concern. The fact that the "attorney" didn't even correctly interpret the STATUTE should have been my first clue. I had hope, though...).
No one should assume that all attorneys... or their advice, position, or interpretations of the law... are totally correct (same as no one should assume all doctors are healers). Can't be. If they were (always correct, always knew the law, always interpreted correctly)... there would be NO lawsuits. None. Because they would all AGREE. That is NOT the case, however. Because if someone is right (i.e., the plaintiff), then someone isn't (i.e., the defendant). And vice versa. Same thing applies to judges. If they were all right... there would be no appeals. It is an adversarial situation; it was and is designed to BE such.
I am not an attorney, no (and not really sure if I want to be, based primarily on those I've come to know, which is why I have dragged my feet about it for SO long!)... but I ain't stupid, either. The assumption that when an attorney "speaks" all within earshot better stop and listen... is what has brought this country to the very litigious place it is. Nothing can be done, said, opined... even thought... without an attorney's stamp of approval on it.
Smacks of that whole "YOU can't understand anything because YOU didn't go to seminary/wasn't ordained by such-and-so Council, etc." to me, and so sounds awfully "Pharisaical"... to me. No surprise, though, that it doesn't "sound" that way to some of them.
Again, peace to you all!
SA, on her own...
-
Justitia Themis
The question is/was: Can a Jehovah's Witness sue the Watchtower Society for Civil Rights violations?
Actually, the questions were much more complex than that; I'm posting them below for your easy review.
Interestingly, law students often--unsuccessfully--on their exams try to reframe the professors' questions from one they don't know to one they do know. As I said...it's a loser strategy because professors always see through it.
There's really no reason to get your panties in a wad and attack a whole industry of professionals just because one of them, or a few of them, addressed a few weaknesses in your arguments. Perhaps there's a reason you're "on your own"...whatever that means...
THEREFORE, my questions to any Attorneys and CPAs, and the keen minds on this board, are the following;
I have been reading old threads on this site about Watchtower Society irregularities regarding tax filings with State and Federal agencies. Evidently, a number of filings for different years were identical (unlikely if not impossible) or missing.
1. IF these agencies were to conclude tax fraud, or non reporting during an audit, would that hurt non-profit status and open WTBS to effective lawsuits? (Perhaps after a whistleblower suit?).
2 . Would a case like the Menlo Park Ca. Congregation “take-over” show Direct Governing body CONTROL therefore help pierce the corporate veil?
3 . If the veil has been pierced by bogus/non existent non-profit status filings, Could Civil Rights Cases against WTBS on behalf of Child Abuse Victims (Sexual, physical emotional and blood) prevail with a larger financial return? Adult members victimized by shunning, families who loose members by suicide after shunning? Ex and unbelieving parents without custody whose minor children die from lack of Blood? Have these had their constitional rights trampled? (Civil rights lawsuits against the Klu Klux Clan pierced the veil and hit them hard.)
4. With the corporate veil pierced, could a small businessperson who lost a large J.W. clientele, by QUESTIONING ever changing Watchtower theology (not moral turpitude), and was disfellowshipped sue Watchtower directly for Slander, Tortuous interference, and Civil rights violations?
5. What is the Federal Statute of limitations on Civil Rights violations?
-
AGuest
You are wrong.
I can accept that, dear JT (peace to you!). Doesn't make sense in light of the mantra of various chapters (including mine, per the intake person), that:
"The ACLU’s client is the Bill of Rights, not any particular person or group. We defend its principles – basic rights of citizens – whenever these are threatened. We do not believe that you can pick and chose when to uphold rights. If a right can be taken away from one person, it can be taken away from anyone. When you deny a right to someone with whom you disagree, you pave the way for that right to be denied to yourself or someone whom you strongly support." http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/download_resources/10ToughQuestionsFINAL0605.pdf
This is why I even thought OF the ACLU... versus some fundamental, religiously-motivated law firm that I am sure would have LOVED to take on the WTBTS.
Usually, they can represent (and use a firewall) if they have the signed, written consent of both parties. Do you really think the WTBTS is going to consent?
No, of course, I don't. I need to correct myself: there is nothing to support that the WTBTS was/is a "client." Indeed, I'm willing to bet that the WTBTS would deny such a relationship on the basis of the ACLU's position as to NAMBLE, etc. The ACLU merely files amicus curiae briefs (which neither creates an attorney/client relationship... or invokes "confict of interest")... in SUPPORT of WTBTS positions, etc. I believe I was TOLD there was a "conflict of interest"... because it was assumed I wouldn't know what that really meant.
And it is not a case of merely creating a firewall. They have to protect all information or be subject to a malpractice claim. That means the computer systems must be screened and locked, and even accidentally leaving a document in the lunchroom that one of the adverse attorneys might see can leave you open to suit. That's why the vast majority of law firms will NOT take these cases even if both parties want to consent. Just the act of firewalling is a pain in the patooty.
Yes, if it's done appropriately. However, it is not always that extreme. On occasion my agency had to file FH claims against a couple/few of my former employers (management companies). I had to be screened, per DFEH regulations... which are not quite the same as ABA protocols. I couldn't access certain files (nor did I want to - in fact, I'm the one who had to tell them that I couldn't work on the cases)... but since there was no way to "lock" the system, it had to be done on an honor system... whereby I had to sign forms stating that I would not, under any circumstances, access anything related to the claims and that if I "accidentally" saw something I would immediately notify the ED, who would immediately notify the DFEH.
The other relevant issue is how adverse are both parties, or how adverse might they end up. In your Fair Housing example, employment discrimination and landlord-tenant are not even relatively close forms of law, so yes, something like that would be much more workable.
Yes.
As you can see AGuest, it's not as clear cut as you thought, and impugning bad motives to the agency was likely a tad bit harsh. I really don't think your friends are "victims." The agency had very real and, I think, compelling reasons for their actions. That should come as good news to your friends.
I actually tried not to be harsh, just realistic. Now, perhaps the entire ACLU wasn't responsible; perhaps it was just the certain person I was designated. Unfortunately, a company/agency is responsible for the actions of its agents, so... And apparently my friends were "victims," because we decided to go beyond the ACLU. And the outcome was more gratifying.
I should have been more clear. Of course they can't purposefully use it. I meant they might accidentally see that information and use it, e.g. my lunchroom hypothetical.
Ahh, yes. I understand. Thanks for clearing that up!
Even if they don't intend to use it, if it's in their brain, they can't wipe it out, and it will affect their decision-making. Hence the need for signed, written consent to relieve the firm of liability should the inevitable accident happens.
Understood.
Lastly, why are you "on your own?" What does that mean?
Oh. I comment on certain topics without direction from my Lord. I mean, I could go to him and just discuss it with him, but I like participating in some of the more "secular", and sometimes humorous, discussions from time to time. I don't want anyone to confuse what I am stating, sharing, or commenting on as coming from him, so I let them know this is "me"... on my own...
Thank you for the information and clarification, dear JT, and again, peace to you!
SA, on her own....
-
Justitia Themis
The ACLU’s client is the Bill of Rights, not any particular person or group
True, to a certain extent. Again AGuest, you will see that these issues are hardly as black/white as you would like to make them. The ACLU does not technically represent; then intervene using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24. It's highly unlikely that this technicality relieves their practicing attorneys of their ethical duties under their respective state bars. Otherwise, they could practice with full immunity from all the rules.
Here is quick explanation of the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(law)
Here is what that looks like in practical application: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-6-23-AmazonvLay-IntervenorsComplaint_0.pdf
Yes, if it's done appropriately. However, it is not always that extreme.
No. It is always that extreme. It it weren't that extreme, more law firms would do it rather than turn down paying clients. Lawyers don't get to use the "honor system." We must implement a REAL system.
On occasion my agency
What you have done or not done in your agency is not the least bit relevant because the ABA's/State Bar Associations' standards are higher.
And whatever happened with your friends case "beyond" the ACLU doesn't matter because it seems the ACLU didn't say that the case lacked merit, only that they had a conflict.
I'm not going to respond to your posts on this thread any longer. It's pretty clear you emotionally want/need your friends to be the "victims" of the UCLU and are not open to any other conclusion. If that's where you want to live, knock yourself out.
-
AGuest
I can see how you might perceive that I "want" my friends to be victims, dear JT (peace to you!), but that really isn't the case; they really did have their rights violated. But you're right and I apologize: I was [quite] chagrined personally at the ACLU representative's response, yes, and perhaps I am blaming the organization itself for what I received from but one representative. Which isn't fair, I guess (although there is that agency thing). Other than that, I really have no beef with the ACLU - I think they're a GREAT organization when it comes to trying to ensure others' rights aren't violated in most instances (sorry, I can't agree with all and particularly when it comes to supporting the WTBTS, an organization that routinely violates all manner of others' rights on a regular and ongoing basis... which, if they bothered to learn that truth, they might not grant so much "support").
It also bothers me that such an organization as the ACLU would consider the "rights" of a large organization in some instances, over those of a family (actually, families) that was abused by that organization. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. But it is what it is: I realize that one (or two) family's plight may not bring the... ummmmmm... changes (and accolades and funding) that supporting a large organization might, but... well, that doesn't stop MY compassion for the "little guy." Indeed, this is one of the reasons why the WTBTS does what it does: it knows it can get away with it... because of its size and influence. If MY position and comments causes someone at the ACLU to go, "Hmmmm... maybe we need to take a look at this organization after all", however... then I don't think my position is invalid or wasted. Indeed, sometimes that's what it takes: someone crying "Foul!" and complaining. Even a little guy. Sure, doing it here might not bring that on... but one never knows.
But I apologize if my comments regarding MY experience with the ACLU touched a nerve with you. I hate the WTBTS, as you can probably guess. I hate what it is, what it stands for, what it does... and what it gets away with. Which causes me to hate it when they're helped... in any way. Perhaps I crossed the line and began to wrongfully "hate" those who help them... and I thank you for making me take a look at that. I understand that guaranteeing their "freedoms" helps to guarantee them for everyone (but given how they USE their freedoms I admit I have issues there. MY flaw, not the ACLU's, and so I apologize).
As for the question(s)... I simply responded to the title question. Since JWN is neither a law school, law class, legal firm, or anything even remotely related, I don't necessarily ascribe to the "rules" that pertain to those. People here respond in all manner of ways to all manner of topics. Perhaps my personal posting "etiquette" isn't what it should be/some would like it to be, but what can I say: I have flaws, many, this being another one.
I don't mind being wrong, dear one... and I thank you for pointing out where I may have been. I am not above learning... or being corrected when I AM wrong. In that light, I did ask someone who knows as to your assertions... and I'm not sure I can agree with all of them. Again, if all attorneys agreed... there would be much less of a legal system than what we have. But that's irrelevant and, even so, I hope this... ummmmm... difference in opinion/understanding doesn't cause an irreparable "wedge" between us: that would be truly unfortunate, IMHO... and tragic, given the subject of the discussion (the WTBTS).
Again, peace to you... and thank you for taking the time to help me "see".
SA, on her own (which, yes, is probably how I got myself into this)...