Watchtower Argues on Behalf of Jimmy Swaggart

by 144001 18 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  alanv

  Thanks for posting this, very interesting. In the Watchtower's defence the document does say twice that the society 'does not support either party in this case'

  However their arguement is that it would be wrong for individual JW to have to pay sales tax. The arguement should have been about whether the Watchtower should pay sales tax. Although individual JWs may well give away some literature, the society had a fixed price that they charged the congregation members and there was no getting round that. I think the society realized that it was going to affect them rather than the individual JWs which is why in the end they went to the donation arrangement.

  Talking about the affect on individual JWs was simply a redf herring which the court saw through.
• 

  144001

  BOTR: This document will not be found at any of those sites. I obtained this copy from a law school library, and you are correct, it is the case the Court decided in 1990. The case is Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California (1990) 493 U.S. 378.

  Alanv: Substance trumps form. Their argument supported Swaggart's case, notwithstanding their dishonest claims to the contrary. But that's not the only dishonest statement in the brief. Check out the second sentence:

  "Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an active door-to-door minister, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to willing listeners and offering printed sermons int he form of religious tracts, pamphleets, magazines, books and Bibles for a suggested nominal contribution."

  My father was a very popular elder, but my mother did not go out in field service for many years, while he was an elder. Did that mean she was not a Jehovah's Witness, although she was baptized, attended all the meetings, and in good standing (not on reproof, or DF)? I'm sure that if you asked anyone in their congregation if my mother was a JW, everyone would have answered that she was. I bet there were many, many more examples of this at the time the WT lawyers wrote that brief.

  I guess this is just another example of the "theocratic warfare" that the WTBTS contends justifies being dishonest.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Thanks...does anyone know an official website where this can be accessed? If I show my wife this she will say it is doctored. Tyoical JW paranoia.
• 

  Devil_Fish

  "Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an active door-to-door minister, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to willing listeners and offering printed sermons int he form of religious tracts, pamphleets, magazines, books and Bibles for a suggested nominal contribution."

  "Unless they are convicted child molesters, in which case we have no responsibility."

  WTBS
• 

  144001

  isaacaustin,

  You can access it on westlaw.com or lexis.com, but both of those sites require payment of extremely high fees for getting the document. Alternatively, take your wife and the document to a law school library and ask the law librarian to assist you in retrieving the printed version of it.
• 

  designs

  Remember when the Wt. Society filed something similar with the Moonies and the Hare Khrisna court cases.
• 

  King Solomon

  "Thanks for posting this, very interesting. In the Watchtower's defence the document does say twice that the society 'does not support either party in this case'"

  Then why bother filing a legal opinion? That's typical double-talk, as it's not like the SCOTUS didn't know what an amicus brief is, or was asking WT to serve as a Judge... <rolleyes>

  WT was NOT a defendant in the case, but tried to influence Satan's evil system of things by befriending it.. If a JW publisher is asked about their opinion (let alone offers it unsolicited!) they face DFing....
• 

  isaacaustin

  Thanks 144001. I have seen the court case from caselaw.com and it does clearly reference the WT filing an amicus curae....this can not be disputed by the most brainwashed of JWs. And I could not find where the site actually had the amicus curae. A JW would not accept a scanned pdf. Do you know an actual link from the court where this can be accessed? Thanks
• 

  isaacaustin

  Ahh, ok 144001, thanks...just saw your last comment....yeah I should go to the library and get a copy of the doc there from a reference.