WT goes to the US Supreme Court Tomorrow

by JT 16 Replies latest jw friends

JT

My wife or I will try to swing by the Supreme court here in Wash DC to hear some of the WT case concerning the Village of Stratton.
I just found out that the argument is for tuesday here in DC. if either one of us can make it one of us will be here
it should be interesting to run into some old bethel buddies of mine if i can make it over there
Life is interesting to say the least
James
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1737.htm
No. 00-1737 Status: GRANTED
Title: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et
al., Petitioners
v.
Village of Stratton, et al.
Docketed: Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
May 21, 2001 (99-4087, 00-3325)
~~Date~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 15 2001 Letter from counsel for the respondents received and distributed.
May 18 2001 Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 20, 2001)
Jun 20 2001 Brief of respondents Village of Stratton, Ohio, and John Abdalla in
opposition filed.
Jul 3 2001 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2001
Jul 6 2001 Reply brief of petitioners Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
York, Inc., et al. filed.
Oct 1 2001 REDISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2001
Oct 1 2001 Record requested.
Oct 10 2001 REDISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 12, 2001
Oct 12 2001 Record filed.
Oct 15 2001 Petition GRANTED. limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.
SET FOR ARGUMENT February 26, 2002.
********************************************************
Nov 6 2001 Record filed.
Nov 27 2001 Brief amicus curiae of Brennan Center for Justice filed.
Nov 28 2001 Joint appendix filed.
Nov 29 2001 Brief amicus curiae of Independent Baptist Churches of America filed.
Nov 29 2001 Motion of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. for leave
to file a brief as amici curiae filed.
Nov 29 2001 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Individual Freedom filed.
Nov 29 2001 Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
filed.
Nov 29 2001 Brief of petitioners Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,
Inc., et al. filed.
Nov 29 2001 Motion of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for leave to
file a brief as amicus curiae filed.
Nov 29 2001 Brief amici curiae of RealCampaignReform.Org, Inc., et al. (TBP)
filed.
Dec 14 2001 CIRCULATED.
Dec 27 2001 Order extending time to file respondents' brief on the merits to
and including January 9, 2002.
Jan 9 2002 Brief amici curiae of Ohio, et al. filed.
Jan 9 2002 Brief of respondents Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al. filed.
Jan 9 2002 Brief amici curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association, et
al. filed.
Jan 22 2002 Motion of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. for leave
to file a brief as amici curiae GRANTED.
Jan 22 2002 Motion of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for leave to
file a brief as amicus curiae GRANTED.
Jan 24 2002 Motion of Ohio, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument
as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 12 2002 Reply brief of petitioners Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
York, Inc., et al. filed.
Feb 15 2002 Motion of Ohio, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument
as amici curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Paul D. Polidoro Legal Department 8453061000
100 Watchtower Drive
Patterson, NY 12563
Party name: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.

Attorneys for Respondent:
Abraham Cantor Abraham Cantor & Associates 4403547749
9930 Johnnycake Ridge Road
Concord, OH 44060
Party name: Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al.

Other Attorneys:
Thomas W. King Dillon, McCandless, et al. 7242832200
128 West Cunningham Street
Butler, PA 16001
Party name: Independent Baptist Churches of America

Mikal J. Condon Electronic Privacy 2024831140
1718 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009
Party name: Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al.

Eric Jaffe 5101 34th Street, NW 2022378165
Washington, DC 20008
Party name: Center for Individual Freedom

David Collins 275 Battery St. 4159865900
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Party name: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Richard L. Hasen 919 South Albany St. 2137361466
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Party name: Brennan Center for Justice

Von G. Keetch 1800 Eagle Gate Tower 8013283600
60 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Party name: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

William J. Olson Suite 1070 7033565070
8180 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102
Party name: RealCampaignReform.Org, Inc., et al.

David M. Gormley State Solicitor 6144668980
30 E. Broad St., 17 FL
Columbus, OH 43215
Party name: Ohio, et al.

Richard Ruda State & Local Legal Center 2024344850
444 North Capitol St., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Party name: International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al.
messenger

If anyone else is in DC they might want to take the time to check it out.It would be interesting to hear how wt argues the case.
JT

I'm sure Brumley and Crew will lie very nicely
smile
Valentine

WTg JT!! Looking forward to your report on this! hugs to you and MrsT! Tina-the other white meat heheheheh
Todays Affirmation:
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.
Moxy

also note that the mormons have filed an infamous amicus curiae.
messenger

In a small Ohio town, a fight over the right to knock on doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Filed: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:36 PM EST
WASHINGTON, Feb 26, 2002 (The Christian Science Monitor via COMTEX) -- If you want to solicit door to door in Stratton, Ohio, you have to get a permit. The rule is as simple as that, say village officials.
Permits are easily obtained from the mayor's office. They cost nothing. No one has ever been turned down.
But that's not the problem, according to lawyers for a group of Jehovah's Witnesses seeking to spread the gospel in Stratton. They insist that Americans have a constitutional right to walk door to door and talk with residents without having to first apply for permission. They also say people have a right to do it anonymously - without being forced to disclose information to local authorities.
Today, the Jehovah's Witnesses' battle against Stratton's solicitation ordinance arrives at the US Supreme Court in a case that will determine whether the permit requirement is a permissible regulation of door-to-door activity or an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.
It is a subject of great interest to cities and towns across the nation who are looking for ways to protect residents from possible fraud by con artists and the nuisance of uninvited doorstep solicitors - including those on a mission from God.
Free-speech advocates view with alarm the growing number of local ordinances restricting such door-to-door activity, noting that the quality of free expression in America is under siege by municipalities seeking convenience, safety, and privacy at the expense of First Amendment liberty.
"The last decade has witnessed a dramatic surge in the number and severity of antisolicitation laws," says Von Keetch, a Salt Lake City lawyer, in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Municipal officials increasingly believe there are few, if any, constraints on their ability to severely limit door-to-door evangelism in their jurisdictions," Mr. Keetch says.
The issue is not new. The US Supreme Court in the 1930s and 1940s struck down a series of municipal ordinances aimed at preventing religious groups from spreading their messages door to door. The Jehovah's Witnesses fought the bulk of those battles and is again in the spotlight.
At the center of the Stratton case is the village's requirement that prior to receiving a permit all would-be door-to-door solicitors must first disclose their name, home address, their employer's name and address, and a description of their planned activities. Once this information is collected, a permit is issued. Solicitors are instructed that they must produce the permit and identify themselves if so requested by any resident or police officer.
To officials in Stratton and their supporters, the permit is well-balanced tool that allows solicitation but discourages criminals from circulating in the village and protects residents' privacy.
To the Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters, the permit amounts to an outright ban of anonymous door-to-door solicitation and pamphleteering - including political advocacy.
"The free one-on-one exchange of ideas is a pillar of our democracy," says Paul Polidoro, a lawyer for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in his brief to the court. "Stratton has devalued both the constitutional right of speakers to express information and the constitutional right of residents to receive it if they so choose."
Abraham Cantor, a Concord, Ohio, lawyer representing Stratton, says the solicitation ordinance is different from others that have been struck down on free-speech grounds by the Supreme Court.
"The Stratton ordinance does not require a disseminator of ideas, whether religious or political, to place his name on the literature, wear a badge, or outwardly proclaim his identity in any manner," Cantor says.
The ordinance was upheld by the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The appeals court brushed aside concerns about restricting anonymous speech, despite a 1995 US Supreme Court decision that established by a 7-2 vote a constitutional right to distribute political fliers anonymously.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in the 1995 anonymous pamphlet case. It says in part: "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
It remains unclear how the seven justices who supported anonymous pamphleteering will view a case involving anonymous soliciting.
Cantor, Stratton's lawyer, says door-to-door solicitors do not enjoy a constitutional right to remain anonymous when they are on private property.
"The Supreme Court has historically indicated that the home is a sanctuary," he says. "It is the right of the homeowner to maintain and retain his privacy."
Polidoro counters that there are easier and more effective ways to protect privacy. Residents could post "No Trespassing," and "No Soliciting," signs outside their homes and then prosecute anyone who ignores them, he says.
By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
(c) Copyright 2002. The Christian Science Monitor
SUBJECT CODE: USA
Copyright © 2002, Christian Science Monitor, all rights reserved.
You may now print or save this document.
messenger

Do JW's go along with using an identification badge? See Below:
WATCHTOWER
BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
25 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201, U.SA.
PHONE 625-3600
April 1, 1982
TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS
Dear Brothers:
Reports coming to the Society on territory coverage indicate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain entrance into apartment complexes and condominiums. In some places legal suits have been threatened if the brothers continue to enter buildings. Often methods used to avoid detection while working buildings have resulted in poor relations with the management as they are concerned about security. How can we reach these people with the good news and at the same time show respect for the difficult task placed upon managers and superintendents? (Matt. 10:16) Herein are some suggestions that might prove helpful.
In high security apartments and condominiums there are generally rigid rules about any kind of door-to-door activity. Managers and superintendents must answer to a board of directors for security. So they ask us to leave even though they may not personally be opposed to our work. When this is done we should immediately leave as requested since refusing to do so could be considered criminal trespass and result in arrest and criminal conviction.
Some progress has been made with managers of these complexes by arranging for representatives of the congregation to approach the managers or superintendents personally in a kindly way, explaining the nature of our work and seeking their assistance so we can in some way communicate with the tenants. How has this been accomplished?
Decorum and approach play an important role. When approaching these men it is best to be positive but respectful. If the reaction is unfavorable, it is best to acknowledge or agree to the extent possible and express empathy for the job he has in keeping the building secure and safe from strangers. It may bring a more favorable response if we offer to arrange for one married couple to come once a week or do only a few doors at a time and check in with the office before entering and when leaving.[b] If it is requested, there is no objection to asking publishers witnessing in the building to wear an identification badge. If concessions are made to allow limited door-to-door visits, it would be good to establish a certain specified time that visits will be made so the superintendent knows when to expect those who will be working in the building.[b/] It would also be good for the ones chosen to become personally acquainted with the management and/or superintendent.
Seeker

I realize I am totally in the minority on this issue, but I hope the WTS wins this case. I am very much leery of giving any government the right to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, even door-to-door. All it would take is some local government to decide they don't like, uh, conservatives, or liberals, or blacks, being able to speak to their neighbors about an issue, and suddenly the permits will not be issued. It won't have anything to do with criminals, and everything to do with idealogy.
I don't like being bothered at the door any more than anyone else does. But the point of free speech is you have to defend that speech you find most distasteful, or else the concept has no meaning.
And for those of you who will yell, 'Yeah, but we want to keep pedophiles away from kids at the door' just remember this law won't affect this one bit. The town officials won't know about pedophiles if the local elders continue to keep this a secret as they do now. And once the WTS is forced to reveal the pedophiles in their midst, they will go to jail, not door-to-door. This Ohio law is irrelevant to this issue.
So here is hoping, sigh, that the WTS once again as they act in their own selfish interests, accidentally helps protects the rights of us all.
JT

seeker email me if you get a moment
I realize I am totally in the minority on this issue, but I hope the WTS wins this case.
#######
interesting thought but there could be other factors you may want to consider as well
thanks
REREAD THE BOE above
and email me
anewperson

Stratton is not saying they can't do it but that they can't do it without letting authorities know who they are so as to be given approval. This protects people from con artists and burglars. There is no hindrance to freedom of religion. If the WTS were to beat Stratton then kooks who claim some tie to religion can go to homes under that guise then trick and steal from people, especially the most confused elderly citizens.
As shown by another poster here the Watchtower Society has long issued identity cards to JWs for usage in communities with this sort of concern, and told JWs to register with police. Therefore they have a history of acknowledging that officials do have the right to make such requirements, and their bellyaching now is therefore moot and voids their case. The Independent Baptists have been tricked by the WTS into thinking they are helping fight for freedom on this issue when the reverse is true as the WTS is against freedom to dissent without reprisal as applies to its own dissidents.

WT goes to the US Supreme Court Tomorrow

Share this