I know JWs have won suits like this from people who became JWs as ADULTS and were baptized as ADULTS saying they knew what they were getting into. But what about those of us who were baptized as minors? Does anyone know of a suit from that perspective?
Just Throwing Out The Idea Of A Class Action Suit Against The Watch Tower Corporations
by frankiespeakin 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Finkelstein
Finkeistein,
I respectfully disagree with you on the shunning polices the "Exclusive brethren" "Amish" and quite a few other religions have
the same polices as the JW's.
Yes thats true, that doesn't mean it couldn't be brought before a Judaical court, to examine if someone's civil liberties are being abused.
There is also a matter of inciting prejudice being acted upon a individual by a group/organization.
-
Phizzy
Go for it !
-
wha happened?
man this thread never ends. It's like each generation of JWN'rs think of this grand NEW idea, so off they run with the torches and pitchforks to another dead end.
-
cyberjesus
All of us who were born in the cult are victims of abuse. In the same way a child is abused by a pedophile we were abused by the brainwashing techniques. I was just a child and I trusted my parents the same way the children of the Waco texas cult kids trusted their parents.. in the same way the kids from the mormon sects are victims. if those kids have a case to sue.. so do we..
I was expelled from 3 schools because I did not salute the flag. I was brainwashed into believe that it was Gods will. I would have killed myself for a mythical figure. to follow the lead of a small group of White guys from Brookling who didnt give a damn about me.
What about the blood issue? what about the post traumatic stress dissorder? the psychological trauma we all have still?
Arent those good reason to request retribution from a Cult in which we were "forced" to take?
-
LV101
fake - there's a lot of crooks w/money who get sued. w/tower has religious rights on their side/unfortunately.
-
diamondiiz
Hello everyone, I still lurk here from time to time but this topic did catch my attention that I wanted to comment on. Watchtower is a corporation that represents a religious order. People that offer/sell watchtower publications are its agents. So regardless what wts says regarding jws, jws are agents for wts and thus wts is vicariously liable for jws but also they are liable for their publications' content.
As a religious body they have the right to believe in flying pigs and unicorns but do they have the right to misrepresent themselves to others? Personally I feel I have been deceived about the cult when I was young and naive, in the days when there was no internet. As a minor I trusted the words of JW - agent for WTS. What were the problems with the things I've been taught? 1914 is the first thing that comes to mind. I was taught that wts foretold 1914 some 40 years prior to the event, I was made to believe that for some 40 years prior to 1914, wts taught that JC was to return, the last days were to start and the signs of ww1 and all these were clear signs of the end prophesies in the bible which Bible Students preached prior to 1914. We all know that was not even close to what wts taught prior to 1914.
I would say that JWs who studied with me (ignorant or not) basically misrepresented what wts really did teach in the past, and wts fraudulently misrepresented their history in many of their publications to make the reader imagine that 1914 was "prophesied" by wts prior to the date. By being selective in what quotes they use, what information they tell the public, wts through its publications and agents is being deceitful. I believe that through their actions they are negligent of not only giving the public false information about themselves and often about science and history of ancient times but wts also is negligent in causing untold number of deaths due to blood ban.
While blood products may be a religious teachings, this teaching has evolved to being quite watered down to the point that many JWs don't know what to accept or what not to, and thus they need the "help" of wts' agents to represent them at hospitals which again there is conflict of interest while dealing with private, personal matters where outside party should not be entitled to your personal health information. This information is given to wts agents because wts creates the fear of df (auto da) for acceptance of blood which causes jws to "voluntarily" seek medical advice from wts which wts is in no position of giving which also makes them liable for deaths caused by their teachings and advice. Especially since wts has changed their teaching were had the people accepted fractions they wouldn't have been df thus be able to live while many have died for refusing even fractions which were banned at one time.
If baptism is a contract, then there is plenty of false statements that wts is guilty of through written or spoken words.
Should we talk about assault? How many of us have been assaulted or intimidated? Assault is when a victim is in fear or anticipates unwanted physical harm. But wouldn't articles that tell jws to stay away from df family members, calling apostates mentally diseased and so forth not represent libel and slander but through this repetitive intimidation also constitute assault on our freedoms of thought? I think those articles do put fear in people of leaving the cult because of losing friends and family but also those of us who have left often realize the assault on our freedoms by wts' written works.
When jws talk badly about us for leaving wts, they are slandering us and when wts writes lies about us it's libel. Sure it may piss us off, and may be too expensive to sue individuals but jws are agents of wts, whether hired workers, its representatives or simply by appearing to be agents of an agency. Even if wts wants to distance themselves from r&f by claiming jws aren't its representatives it really would be difficult to disprove that idea. JWs, dress and behave in a manner that wts tells them, they carry wts publications and they teach wts dogma which makes them wts agents when they come to your door.
A reasonable person would expect not to be lied to by an agent or by an agency. An organization has fiduciary duty to others to be honest. Fiduciary duty may deal with professionals but wouldn't jws be considered professional agents of wts when they come to your door offering publications? They aren't "selling" you the bible and study from the bible, they are "selling" you wts wares which they represent. These professionals have the duty to act in the clients best interest, which IMO would mean a lot if they told the people they studied at the door about what they really taught regarding 1914 for example. Or that wts tends to misquote scientists or historians and tends to spin their words in direction the authors didn't mean to. So while JWs, may be ignorant of their own teachings and what they tell people at the door, the agency is vicariously liable for them and wts is the one that carries the full responsibility what it presents to the public. I don't know if they can totally hide behind freedom of religion because I don't think they have the freedom to misrepresent and deceit others.
I think in the class action law suit, one would have to gather as many legal issues as possible so to build as strong of a case as possible. It would be too expensive for an individual person to go after a corporation like wts but as a class suit it may be possible. I think that wts has right to teach whatever they want, but they don't have the right to misrepresent themselves or deceit others without being liable for their actions that have caused harm to many of us. This may be easier to fight where common law is in practice - US, Canada, and UK are few that use common law.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this topic.
-
skeeter1
#1) Where are you going to get an attorney to front the costs of a class action lawsuit? It's VERY expensive.
#2) As stated above, the first amendment allows the Watchtower to preach shunning, anti-education, no blood, etc. The first amendment also allows people the stupidity to join the religion. As Barbara Anderson's lawsuit can attest, the courts are much more likely to blame the victim.
#3) There is a tiny glimmer of hope. There is an old case in Pennsylvania (Mennonite) and a newer case in California (Scientologists) where the religions were found to be in the wrong for trying to break up an immediate family. But, the Watchtower knows this. The WTS say, "Just don't have spiritual conversations with the unbeliever". But, once the child is 18 or the spouse realizes that the "ties are snapped" then it's the individual, not the WTS, that breaks up the family. In any event, you can't sue the religion becuase your old friends no longer want to be your friends. That's their freedom of association rights.
#4) The blood issue. For class action, you are going to have to find similarly situated people who suffered actual HARM from the Society's stance AND are willing to go to court.
#5) College. Again, adults have the right to believe in anything. Stupid belief or not. Courts aren't going to allow one to sue for lack of advanced education. There are some religions that don't advocate going beyond 8th grade, and those people can't sue either.
#6) There is a case against the Moonies for decieving, and the follower won. In it, the Moonies recruiter didn't tell the convert that he was associating with the Moonies and denied/conjuled him to not leave the farm, for something like a week or so. This allowed the brainwashing solidify. The Moonies defended the suit by saying, 'Well, we finally told him and he accepted us and joined.' But, the court found the person's confinement, isolation, and brainwashing to be so severe as to render him without independent power to reject. With the Jehovah's Witnesses, they tell you up front that they are the Jehovah's Witlesses, they don't confine you to a farm, and you have a whole week between Bible studies to investigate what you are getting into. So, how are you going to sue for misrepresentation on that one? And, I don't think any court is going to pontificate on "what is a cult?" If that was the case, the Repulicans and Democrats could each be sued for beign a cult.
In short, the First Amendment allows one to be stupid. Educating people on how to identify a cult is the key.
-
frankiespeakin
What about Lawyer Fees:
http://class-actions.lawyers.com/Lawyer-Fees-in-Class-Actions.html
Do you think class action lawsuits make huge profits for the amount of work they put in? Are you confused about how courts decide how much an attorney in a class action should receive? Here are the answers to some of the most frequently-asked questions about class action attorneys' fees.
Who pays the lawyers in a class action lawsuit?
In a class action for money damages, lawyers who represent the class are generally paid out of the money that's recovered - called a "common fund" - for the people they are representing. In class actions involving declaratory judgments or injunctive relief, lawyers may be paid by the people who hired them, or in some cases, by the people or companies they are suing.
Attorney's fee awards are subject to court review and approval. Ordinarily, if an award is made in a common fund case, it will be awarded as a percentage of the total money available for the class. A benchmark award generally accepted by the courts is approximately 25 percent of the total, although the award may be adjusted higher or lower, depending on the specific facts of a case.
What are the signs of an unfair settlement or improper representation?
There has been a great deal of criticism of class action litigation in the news in recent years. Sometimes the criticism is justified; often, it's not. A good deal of the criticism focuses on the fees that lawyers receive. Many times, the most vocal opponents of class action litigation are insurers who are required to pay covered claims as a result of the litigation, or the wrongdoers involved in the underlying misconduct.
It's true that lawyers who represent a class will often receive fees many times greater than the compensation received by any given class member. But the total money recovered on behalf of the class in a proper settlement is invariably many times the fee awarded to lawyers.
Without a means to sue wrongdoers for cheating people out of small sums, we would all be at the mercy of small time cheats. Generally, no one person cheated out of $100 can find a lawyer to represent him. But several thousand people cheated out of $100 each have a powerful collective wrong that attracts qualified legal representation to put a stop to the practice.
Despite the frequent unjustified criticism of lawyers handling class action litigation, there have been instances where courts have found representation of a class to be inadequate and proposed settlements unfair. Although the presence of one or more of the following circumstances doesn't always mean a settlement is unfair, the following are examples of circumstances which may justify a closer look at a proposed settlement of class action litigation:
-
skeeter1
Who puts up the money for the lawyer's COSTS? The COSTS in a class action suit are not small potatoes. First, the lawyer has to identify the class of potential harmed people. TV ads? Newspaper ads? Mailings? Postage, paper, court fees. The lawyer has to pay his staff's time to prepare and mail all the paperwork, to keep the victims claims summarized, etc.
Before an attorney fronts the costs, he's going to want to know that there is a LEGAL wrong, not just a moral wrong. Legally, the WTS is practicing its first amendment rights. See above.
Yes, the lawyer's fees (e.g. hourly rate) are given to the court after the suit has started (initial costs laid out). The court can approve them, lower them, etc. THe victim's payout is usually net of fees, and in many places the only one to "get rich" is the attorney of the class action lawsuit.
You are much more likely to get a lawyer to take on a class action once there have been several court cases won in a particular area (like child sex abuse, medical malpractice, drug maker liability). But, to get an attorney to front the costs on a largly unproven legal argument is, most likely, never going to happen.
Call your local or State Bar Association. Ask them for a referral to a class action tort attorney(s). Call them. I'm interested in what they say.