Londo,
You raise a good point. There are some problems. First, if a fund were set up, what criteria would a committee use to select worthy exJWs? I've studied this in school and in real life. The ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, etc. take only the rarest cases. They select which priority is the most important. Funding is the problem. Also, b/c litigation costs so much money, not every worthy case is fought. They look for cases that will impact millions of people. Another factor is the present state of the law and the voting patterns of the justices in the jurisdiction.
I know it looks as tho they rescue everyone b/c I used to believe it. Working as a college student, law student, and lawyer for the ACLU changed my mind in a few minutes. The phones would ring off the hook with people in desperate need of help. Most people get referral letters to more specific public interest groups. The problem is that this work is low paid for lawyers. They make a fraction of what they could make in a private practice. It doesn't attract millions of lawyers.
Also, most of these cases are actually farmed out to large Wall St. and Washington, DC law firms. Corporate law is boring compared to public interest law. A win before important cases gets in the major newspapers and other media which shows corporate clients how good the firm's lawyers are.
Unlike others here who thinking suing is easy, I worked on the front lines of several causes. If you lose, you set your favorite cause back decades, Wins are causes for ecstasy. It becomes an emotional roller coaster.
I've tried to explain many times that law suits are a poor vehicle for justice. In general, law (the whole body of it) favors the status quo of government and property interests. It developed that way from the start. We celebrate the few places the law provides civil rights and civil liberties. The body of law is on the WTBTS side. They are a corporation. This shields them from most liablity. Individuals might be responsible in local KHs. This is not unique to the WT. I am certain every religion organizes this way. It is their legal right to do so.
Defamation, libel, --whatever are often bandied about by posters here. These causes of action has strict elements that must be met for a case to succeed. I don't see how spending money on lawyers in most cases would change the end result.
I would suggest guerrila warfare a la the sixties. Creative entertaining demonstrations in the vein of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Hoffman. Ridicule them.
In an ideal world, there would be enough lawyers for everyone. The lawyers would be of equal quality and the funding would be adequate. We don't live in such a world.
It becomes complicated. If we can't agree on this board and off this board, how can we ever agree who would be trustees? How would the lawyers be selected? I am not willing to part with funds for most of the causes here. There would have be very strong odds that the money would not be wasted. The law would be ripe for change. The suit must affect many exJWs.
Religion is such a personal experience. Living well as proud apostates or being indifferent is the best way to stop the WT. Educating family and friends is more practical. The First Amendment will not disappear. How many peope here have had to go through law suits in their private lives? They are not fun. The costs are draining.
If law would succeed, I would cheer you on and offer funding. There may a rare exception. In terms of telephone calls or letters, anyone can be an agent for another person. You could designate a friend to make phone calls. Sort of sports agent or celebrity agent. Playing on a field where you will lose is not wise. TV shows should stop making lawsuits look so glamorous. They are ugly. You only sue when you exhaust all other possibilities.
