A month ago someone inquired about where the case against Watchtower in Otuo v Watchtower was at currently. Firstly the Claimant has brought two separate claims against the Watchtower . Case 1 relates to a suit in slander premised on the words , "Frank Otuo is no longer a Jehovah Witness". This statement he saids is defamatory of him as the audience were capable of giving it the innuendo meaning that he had committed at least one of the following " theft, paedophilia, fraud or adultery`'. At a preliminary hearing in November 2013 of which judgement was handed down on Dec 5 2013; the judge considered Watchtower's application to strike out on the grounds that the issues raise matters of church doctrine and thus were non-justiciable in the court of law. This is watchtower's trump card in USA as the constitution offers such near blanket protection which the organisation has abused. Otuo made a cross application to the judge to determine whether the words are capable of the meaning in its literal or natural sense and if not was it capable of the meaning by innuendo. In Law either can sustain claim. HHJ Moloney dismissed Watchtower's strike out application holding that the issue raised by the Claimant(fraud) is in fact justiciable as they go to questions of fact not doctrine. He Further Held that the words were not capable of being defamatory in it's literal or natural sense i.e. a neutral person with no special knowledge ( those possessed by witnesses or those who are interested in their teachings) of those words would not read them as meaning what Otuo says it means. However he found that those very words can convey the meaning Otuo pleads in the innuendo sense to those who have the "special knowledge" and thus will be capable of being defamatory. The case was scheduled to be tried later in 2014. In June 2014 Watchtower wanted a second bite at the cherry. This time they applied to have the claim struck as being time barred by a one day, as it is the case in English Law that all defamation claims should be brought within one year or twelve months from when the cause of action accrued. The announcement or publication as it is known in legal jargon was made on the 19th July 2013 and Otuo filed his claim on the 19th July 2013. It was Watchtower's case that the Limitation period expired on midnight 18th July 2013 and thus Otuo's claim was time barred. The Master struck out the claim as being time-barred by one day. He gave permission to appeal on limited ground that Watchtower had raised that defence too late and could as result be said to have waived their right to a defence based on limitation. The appeal came before Sir David Eady, an experienced defamation judge. He held that a waiver of such right should be clear and unequivocal and does not appear that, it can be said that Watchtower waived their right unequivocally. He disallowed the appeal. He however held that Otuo be allowed to be heard on an application under the law to disapply such limitation ( Section 32A of Limitation Act 1980). That came before HHJ Parkes QC. On the 16th March 2015 he handed down his judgment at the Salisbury Combined Court; please read full text of judgement by searching Otuo v Watchtower [2015] EWHC 509 (QB). The judge appeared very aloof to the real issues in his judgement. He disallowed the application to disapply. Otuo, like a dog with a bone in mouth refuses to let the case die. He filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal and awaits the outcome. Here is the twist in the tail; During his preparation to file the appeal of HHJ Parkes' judgement, he stumbled on an authority in the case of Gentoo v Hanratty [2008] EHWC 627 (QB) at par [7] of the judgement it was held by Eady J as he was then known, that in English Law when computing time barred by statute, no count is made to include the day on which the cause of action accrued. This implies that the Master was wrong in Law in the first place to have held that Otuo's claim was time barred. The Master has since admitted the error and has asked Otuo to appeal his judgement. If there is one thing that Otuo appears to have learnt in his days as witness, it is the proverbial "waiting attitude" often drilled into witnesses to have. He appears determined to see the matter to the happy ending as we all hope. Watchtower, from the excerpts of defence that I have read, does not seem to have a chance of succeeding on this claim. Watchtower recognises the effect an adverse judgement will have on them when she said in her defence," to allow a claim in damages in such circumstances would have a chilling effect and/or inhibiting effect on their right and public interest as a church to deal properly, or at all with those committing gross sin, especially in matters relating to Child Safeguarding ( and therefore liable to expulsion for the benefit and protection of the remaining members) as to deny them of the rights guaranteed to them under the said Article 9 of the Convention".Otuo has them lock, stock and barrel. His case is one of the most grotesque form of injustice ever suffered since the case of Olin Moyle v Rutherford & Anr in the late 1930s. He is determined to ensure that the organisation takes dis-fellowshipping seriously and should only be carried out on proven facts not on the subjective intentions of a proven bigot like Jonathan Morley, the elder in this case accused of maliciously instigating the action without any evidence of the accusation. My Next report will be on the second claim i.e. Otuo v Jonathan David Morley & Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Britain it deals with a repetition of the slander by Morley at a meeting to consider Otuo's reinstatement after one year of dis-fellowshipping.. It clear that whatever the outcome Otuo has shaken and broken the foundations of the Watchtower's key defence of non-justiciability. He is a dogged litigant in person who has quite clearly familiarised himself with the defamation laws of England and has an eagle eye for detail in spotting any weakness in Watchtower's defences. Bravo!!
Latest on Otuo v Jonathan David Morely & Watchtower Bible and Tract Society + Otuo v Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
by Adwoa Kromo 11 Replies latest forum links
-
-
menrov
Thanks for sharing. I looked it up: The claimant brought a claim against in the defendant in libel. The defendant belatedly issued an application dated 19 June 2014 to strike out the claim on the footing that the claim form had not been issued within the limitation period, so that the claim was time-barred. The claimant sought to utilise s 34 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period. The Queen’s Bench refused the application.
But what it overall shows, that the WBTS is far more interested to use any legal option to protect or hide their policies than that they are seeking support for their policies.
-
Laika
Oh cool, I know Jon Morley, he has form for this. -
defender of truth
Thank you so much for posting this.. few people seemed to take note of how big this case could be. Please can you keep us updated?
Earlier thread here:
-
Brokeback Watchtower
The legal cases against the WT corporation the better it is good to see people standing up to this bully in court. -
The Searcher
Excellent to hear!
It's an impossibility for the Org's legal departments to cope with every single case which lands on their desks, whether lawsuits or any other matters, so it begs the question, "How much money is bleeding from the Org to pay for non-Witness lawyers to act for them?"
-
JWdaughter
The WT likes legal technicalities. Whether they win or lose, if they have made technical arguments to barr or win a case they can claim persecution if not victory. It doesn't matter why they are victorious or that they are not really persecuted, but they have their excuses in their pocket. -
_Morpheus
Wow of all the nerve.... To claim that not being able to df someone would hirt their ablity to protect children.... Just wow.
i hope this man continues the fine fight and i LOVE his theory regarding the "implied" nature of the annoucment. I wish such case could be made in the USA
edited to add: i have no problem with the wt retaining the right to decide who can and cannot be in their club but the required shunning that come with explusion is unfathomable from a legal POV. I have said before and will say again: i dare the WT to drop the unchristain practice of shunning and see how few actually stay 'witnesses'.
-
scoobydont
The Watchtower Organisation is hurting and bleeding but has, so far, restricted its "theocratic warfare" to court rooms and newspaper pages. However, I worry that, in the long term, as the hurt continues from litigations against the society, it might adopt a mafia-style hit which would see to it that litigants in complex and costly suits against the WTBS either disappear mysteriously or have a "nice" little accident to put them out of the way.
Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched, but would the WTBS stand by and watch its very own demise, occasioned by an inevitable rash of litigations from former members ?!
This organisation already has a track record for fighting dirty. It remains a religious organisation only in name. How much of a leap is it from their current moral (or immoral) position to where I fear they could be heading in the future ?
-
oppostate
Let them try to fight dirty in the courts.
Everything is on record.
They'll find themselves openly and embarrassingly exposed.
Every legal case helps to storm the Tower.
Yup! Storm the Tower; starve the beast!