Hi Ros,
Good to hear from you. Yes a clearing area to keep tabs on the litigation might be good. Please let me know if you do get a forum started.
Hope you are having a good winter. All is well here.
gb
DF? Sue for Fraud-New Strategy
by messenger 16 Replies latest jw friends
-
garybuss
-
anglise
Well done messenger to find this.
Brilliant.
If only it could work.
Maybe some of you clever ones amongst us could take a close look. -
waiting
bttt - interesting.....
-
tyydyy
This sounds great!
If there is anyone who has reciepts of donations given, I'm sure these would be big help in making a strong case against the WTS.TimB
-
hawkaw
Oh!!! Please stop this and don't even go there with this thread.
This is nothing knew - absolutely nothing is new here. Notta - Not a thing.
The constitutions of both Canada and the USA give a fundemental right that a person (or organization) has the right to a free conscience and freedom of religion.
Period.
The only thing that may get in the way is a health and safety issue. For example a court order to get a kid a blood transfusion because the kid isn't old enough to understand what they are doing will bypass this fundemental right of religious freedom.
One of the big cases was the United States v. Ballard decided by SCOTUS in 1944. It was a fraud case too that involved religion.
The case basically explained that a court cannot decide whether a doctrine is true or false. Got it - a court CANNOT decide whether a doctrine is true or false. Why? Cause it is a "belief" and beliefs are protected by the constitution.
But what SCOTUS did say was a person has to "honestly and in good faith" believe (or teach) the doctrine. If you can prove that a "bozo" actually does not "honestly and in good faith" believe in a certain doctrine then you can go after them.
The WTS covers their collective a$$es by calling changes - "New Light". This is a docrine by itself too and cannot be judged by the court. Thus, any changes or shunning doctrines are not allowed to be looked at by the court.
So please stop the "fraud" lawsuits now on the shunning issues etc unless you guys have concrete evidence that the leadership of the Witnesses "honestly and in good faith" don't believe in their doctrine.
I wish Mad Apostate or Commie Chris would get into this thread and put a stop to it.
hawk
-
messenger
I see MR. Hawk seems to have an opinion, yet someone did go to court, they DID file a complaint, and the DID WIN! So it kind of goes against your argument that these cases are not winable. As you will note in the beginning of this post I mentioned this MAY mark a change in court opinions regarding this issue. If this continues to go in this direction it may mean that religions can be called to task for FRAUD. Fraud in business is when you tell a person one thing or lead them to believe it and then have no itention of delivering what was offered. If that person can prove they lost time and money in the process the are thus defrauded and can seek legal compensation. I do not think you have to be a mental giant to see this process.
If religion starts to come under the same scrutiney as business when it comes to fraud then a world of justice may come to those who use God to mislead and defraud the innocent.
-
hawkaw
messenger,
Slow down and look at the case law.
This is NOT a new case.
This case is about - does a "perp" actually believe in what he teaches. Yes or no.
It is NOT about whether a doctrine is right or wrong (true or false). The case is about whether the person teaching it "honestly and in good faith" believed in the doctrine.
hawk