A petition that really works! Change the law to bring the WTS to its knees!

by Diest 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rip van winkle

  Diamondiiz hit the nail on the head!!! They should not be tax-exempt in the 1st place.
• 

  Diest

  I am not positive but I dont think ex-post facto rules effect the statute of limitations. Obviously they were changed in CA in order to allow the Conti Case to happen.

  Irondork, I agree it is not easy, but there are plenty of ex-jws with money who might have an interest in supporting an iniative like this....either that or trying to lobby a state legislature to change the law. Both would cost money, and time but they would also have a huge impact on fighting the WTS.
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  I don't pretend expertise on "ex-post facto". However, Wiki does explain it somewhat: " Unfortunately, the issue is not so simple. With one ruling in 1798, the Supreme Court succeeded in muddling the issue of ex post facto laws by holding that the prohibition of retroactive laws applies only to criminal, not civil, laws."

  And, as I understand it, the Conti case is a Civil, not criminal case.

  Len
• 

  Diest

  Thanks FF
• 

  Band on the Run

  Ex post facto is not an issue. States are extending the statute of limitation successfully. One argument against doing it is that individuals relied on the old limit. The limit makes sense b/c people tend to remember things less clearly as time passes. Evidence often disappears. There should be some time when actors know the consequences have passed.

  Removing tax exemption from any religion poses major cosnt'l problems. The only way to do it is to remove exemptions for all religions. The Establishment Clause bars excessive government entanglement in religion. The above working is way too vague. Any legislative history that includes an intent to discriminate against any religion, even if the language is neutral, will cause the measure to be held unconst'l. I would help the WT if someone tried to include such language.

  Lobbying the legislatures will take work. Local papers need to be read to see what has happened and how influentials legislators will likely vote.

  I like it b/c it is doing something concrete, rather than posting to a forum.
• 

  Farkel

  : Ex post facto is not an issue. States are extending the statute of limitation successfully.

  One cannot be punished retroactively under a law that is passed since the crime was committed.

  If you are implying that say, there is a 3 year statute of limitations when I commit a crime but I am not caught or convicted and 5 years have passed and then some legislature passes say, a 10 year statute of limitations on that same crime, I can be punished under the NEW law, then that is unConstitutional. If that is the case, and people are being punished under those types of circumstances, then the Constitution means shit to the Courts who enforce those laws in that way.

  The consequences to our liberty of the various government entities violating the ex post facto clause are dangerous and grave.

  Farkel
• 

  Diest

  Farkel look up at FatFreeks post. I am not talking about a criminal matter here. Civil law is different and not covered to the same level by the constitution as criminal law is.
• 

  Farkel

  Diest,

  : Farkel look up at FatFreeks post. I am not talking about a criminal matter here. Civil law is different and not covered to the same level by the constitution as criminal law is.

  Well, why don't you actually READ the Constitution, then. What part of "any law" do you have a hard time understanding?

  Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
  Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

  State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

  A 1798 Supreme Court ruling is hardly definitive. The Constitution AS RATIFIED does not distinguish between criminal and civil laws. The Supreme Court gave us Jim Crow laws, too. Anyone, even an idiot who actually reads Article 1 Section 10 can clearly see the intent of our Founding Fathers. They didn't want people to have a different "escape clause" when they did the deed, only to have a more punitive escape clause years or decades after the original "escape clause" had expired. Such a practice could lead to all sorts of Government Tyranny(tm).

  Diest, you may look like Thomas Jefferson, but I knew Thomas Jefferson and you are no Thomas Jefferson!

  (snicker. Just teasing!)

  Farkel
• 

  Diest

  Farkel,

  I do like to read the constitution, but knowing how the courts apply the constitution is more important. For instance did you know that until the 14 th amendment was passed the bill of rights was only applicable to the federal government and not to the state governments?

  As for the situation at hand here is the info that I vaguely knew but had to go look up. The SCOTUS still uses the case Calder v. Bull, as the precedent when looking at post facto issues. The court declared that legislators could not do any of the following: 1) criminalize an act that was not a crime when it was committed; 2) ''aggravate'' a crime, making it more serious than it was when committed; 3) make the punishment greater than it was when the crime was committed; or 4) alter the legal rules of evidence to make it easier for the government to obtain a conviction.

  None of these apply to civil cases. The court has never ruled that civil laws cannot be changed post facto.

  I also found the Childs Victim Act that was passed in CA that allowed a 1 year window for people to go back and suit their molester. To my knowledge this law was never overturned. Take a look at this flier. http://www.napsac.us/vertical/sites/%7BB1BD8FDA-4E6A-46F4-8381-B2772E753B7D%7D/uploads/%7BD5CEE724-9EFE-4540-ACEC-CA007BA470AF%7D.PDF

  Signed,

  An Idiot Who Reads Case Law and the Constitution
• 

  Farkel

  Diest,

  I don't have time to comment on your entire reply right now, but I will on this comment:

  : For instance did you know that until the 14 th amendment was passed the bill of rights was only applicable to the federal government and not to the state governments?

  Of course I knew that. It became what is known as the "inclusionary rule." As it now stands, most or all of the Bill of Rights also no apply to State Governments. In fact, I cannot think of one clause in the Bill of Rights that today only apply to the laws of the Federal Government. Can you? (Besides the 9th and 10th Amendments, of course).

  Farkel