Duane Magnani and the "no meetings" child custody injunction

outsmartthesystem

I talked to Duane and he mentioned that due to the abundance of damning material he has on file that can be used in a court against the society....it is not uncommon for the society to coerce the "believing" parent into signing it. It is basically an injunction that says that the "believing" parent is not allowed to take the kids to any meetings or discuss any society based beliefs with them at all until the children are of "legal" age. Based on the litany of info against them......evidently the society gladly coerces the "believing" parent into signing it.....even though they know it means that the "little sheep" (the children) will be kept away from the meetings. From what I understand.....if the "believing" parent did not sign this injunction.....then all gloves are off and all this damning material will be presenting in a PUBLIC court. The society is determined not to let that happen even if it means abandoning one of their own.

So.......do any of you have any case knowledge of this happening? I'd like specific cases to look up and/or a REAL reason to believe (not that Mr. Magnani is not telling the truth).

Can anyone help?

james_woods

Just offhand, this sounds rather strange to me.

I doubt that most family courts would dictate such an injunction, and I cannot imagine the society instructing a member to sign it.

But, let us see more facts to be sure...

BTW - who exactly is this Duane Magnani?

braincleaned

Man, this looks interesting. But I know nothing about this story, and I want to know. Could you post a link, or explain what this means please?
What are these papers you talk about?

blondie

Well, I do know that officially (from one side of their mouth), the WTS tells jw wives of non-jw men that the husbands are the heads of the family despite their not being jws and that the mothers should try to teach the children at home when the father is not around not having a formal study if he specifically forbids it. The jw mothers are told too that he can take them to church as well.

Jw husbands are told to be considerate of his non-jw wife's feelings and not to have a heavy hand regarding their teaching. But of course behind the scenes it can be much different.

More and more the courts are being educated of what really is happening.

BTW my father was not a jw and he didn't want my mother to go to the meetings and leave us home with him, trapping him at home. He was happy for us to go......

outsmartthesystem

Blondie - That's not me. I LOVE my baby girls and relish any opportunity I can get to be with them. Especially if it involves keeping them away from that cult

Band on the Run

Blatantly unconst'l. Every church or quasi-church in the nation would be opposed. Perhaps some crucial facts are missing. The modern determination is almost always what is in the best interest of the child (before women had children of ten years; around four or five, the father was thought necessary to control education and everything else). Every case will differ depending on the facts.

Such religious bias could get a judge in deep trouble. I assume special facts were present to allow a family court judge to rule this way. Jehovah's Witnesses one day; your favorite belief will be curtailed the next day. Judges can never choose any religion or demote any religion.

If terrible animus towards the nonJW parent was found, maybe this result would be justified. It would have to be extraordinary.

outsmartthesystem

www.jehovahswitnessesexperts.com

It seemed strange to me at first but now makes perfect sense. If the society knows you are equipped with a vault of devastating material against them, they will gladly sacrifice a couple of sheep in order to keep that info out of a PUBLIC courtroom. It is one thing for "apostates" to publish their sins......and it is another to have courtroom after courtroom publishing it.

Duane has wreaked havoc for them in JW custody decisions. The "child custody" brochure was written by them because of the success his methods have had. He has since written a "refutation of the child custody" book himself.

The problem is that 90% of ex witnesses obtain a local lawyer that has no idea how to attack the case....and therefore they lose. But he has been doing this for 30 years and he knows the JW faith in and out so he knows where to attack and what works and what doesn't in court. From what I've heard......the society is more than happy to urge the witness to sign such an injunction when they know he is involved in the case because they know the alternative is devastating evidence made public.

whathappened

When we went to the exJW meetup in Chicago a couple of months ago, we met a lovely sister who got the judge to order her husband, (her daughter's father) not to talk to the daughter about the religion nor take her to the meetings. This was a landmark case here in Illinois. I think she has a facebook page about it so maybe you could search for it. I'm sorry I can't remember what name it's under. If I think of it, I will let you know.

outsmartthesystem

BOTR - I was told that the injunction is not from the court or the judge. It is from the a suggestion from the ex-witness legal team and supposedly the society has been known to coerce the witness parent into signing it so as to keep the case from going to trial.....and subsequently a litany of horrifying society dealings and cover-ups being made public in a courtroom setting

outsmartthesystem

BTW - welcome back BOTR

Duane Magnani and the "no meetings" child custody injunction

Share this