What is an Amicus Brief

by 3acrewood 37 Replies latest watchtower bible

Scorpion

I dug up some information on this subject and will briefly type the just of what I have found out and have in my file.
SUMMER 1959
"We never solicit donations," WT Society says, on page 27 of the book Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, quoting from the WT magazine , Jan/Feb, 1882,p.2
EARLY 1980
State of California informs Jimmy Swaggart Ministries that tax is due for religious books and tapes sold in the state since 1974. Swaggart eventually pays the tax-$183,000.00-but sues for a refund.
MAY 1988
Jimmy Swaggart confesses he had commited a "moral sin," reportedly consorting with a prostitute.
JANUARY 1989
WT Society distributes Feb, 1989 issue of OUR KINGDOM MINISTRY, declaring that JWs are not "agents or representatives of the WTBTS." Page 3
The article mentions the possibility of "an accident" on private property while distributing literature.
February 1989
U.S. Supreme Court rules that it is illegal for the state of Texas to exempt religious books from sales tax. This strikes down such exemptions in 15 states. Other states with sales taxes had been taxing religious books all along.
Summer 1989
WT Society gives away "free" new books released at U.S. conventions, abandoning the long-standing practice of selling the books. Witnesses are instructed to place donations in contribution boxes to cover the cost.
JUNE 22, 1989
WT SWociety files "friends of the court" briefs including National Council of Churches and Society for Krishna Consciousness.
JANUARY 17, 1990
U.S. Supreme Court rules against Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, declaring that the sales tax must be paid.
FEBRUARY 9, 1990
WT Society writes letter to congregations announcing that literature will no longer be sold to JWs at the Kingdom Hall, and that no price will be set when JWs distribute materials door-todoor.
FEBRUARY 25, 1990
February 9th letter from WT Society is read at Sunday meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses across U.S.
MARCH 1, 1990
New policy of distributing literature without naming price goes into effect.
MARCH 11, 1990
Announcement is made at KHs in U.S. that food will be available at no cost, on a freewill donation basis, at J.W. conventions.
[The March 15, 1990, WT magazine and March 22nd AWAKE!-printed earlier-still say"25 cents(U.S.) a copy" and "$5.00(U.S.) per year." The April, 1990, Watchtower no longer carries a price]
The thing I find ironic about all of this is that the April 1, 1990 Watctower on page 20 says concerning Jehovah's Witnesses: They do not dodge taxes or seek to evade inconvenient laws.
Also in 1991 the WTBTS annual sales totaled more than $1,248,000,000.00 up nearly $1/4 billion from just over $1 billion in 1990 according to readers wit access to computer-linked credit reporting services.
Just think of the whopping tax the WTBTS would have to pay if they stayed with pricing literature. Free will donations for literature cannot be taxed because of no set amount.
Hope this info helps.
Scorpion

I also forgot to mention that food at assemblies would also be taxed according to the new tax laws set forth by the State. If the food is given away with free-will donations made by the individual Jehovah Witness, no tax can be collected because of no set amount being asked for.
I am sure it will only be a matter of time before the Governments go after religion and start to tax them full bore. To many Religions have to much power and wealth like the Catholics and Mormon church. The wealth of the LDS makes the WTBTS small in comparison.
Seven

Ohhhh, Amicus Brief. I thought it read Armani Brief which cost about $40. pair. Nevermind.
Frenchy

Are knights supposed to wear briefs?
No wonder it's so drafty in this tin suit! Brrrr!
----
The French Knight (who unwittingly wandered into this all too serious virtual kingdom)
Friend

waiting
You said:
Well, Friend, the letter from the Society to the elders said "they could speak about it if they wished."
Actually the letter in question stated, "The elders and ministerial servants should meet as soon as possible and review this letter and the letter to all congregations… This matter must be kept in strict confidence until the enclosed letter is considered with the congregation." [Bolded emphasis added]
So, like I said, the Society gave permission that elders and ministerial servants could speak of the contents of that letter, including the parts about the recent (at the time) court rulings that could categorize our literature distribution as a commercial activity.
That elders and/or pioneers in your congregation do not remember the letter in question or details of the letter in question is irrelevant. Most elders do not remember tomorrow what they read today. The fact is that the Society did inform congregations that recent court rulings had the potential of classifying our distributions as commercial activity. At the time the stuff about Jimmy Swaggart Ministries’ legal entanglements was national news in the USA. Commentator after commentator discussed implications of that case as it might apply to various religious activities. When the Society sent those initial letters out it was not big secret about why. We all could see why on the nightly news. All the friends were already talking about it.
I still fail to see what you find unethical about the Society’s actions in this case. What you don’t seem to understand is that who the defendant was did not matter one iota for the Society’s filing of amicus curiae. The defendant could have been your grandmother and it wouldn’t have mattered. The Society’s action was purely between the Society and the court.
Frenchy
You said:
As an elder I read that letter sent to us about the 'new donation arrangement' that was being instituted. As a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks later we got yet another letter with a few more clarifications. It gave the appearance of some sort of panic move. Just my impression. There was nothing at all in the letters about the brief filed. There was no mention of Jimmy Swaggart in any way. The information that was to be given out to the publishers was what would be coming out shortly in the publications.
Yes, I agree, the Society’s action was a knee jerking panic move. I’m sure you recall that over a period of about 6 months the Society revamped congregation record keeping also about 6 times. It was a mess!
As for the letter, it was clear that our reaction resulted from recent supreme court rulings regarding the distribution of religious literature. We had already been watching this develop because it was national news at the time. Frequently various friends commented about how we might be affected with our literature distribution. The whole thing was common knowledge.
As for the Society spelling out the specifics of them filing as a friend of the court, why should they have done so? Do you really think it is necessary that such innocuous actions like that need addressing in print? What for? The only ones offended by the Society’s amicus curiae filing are those ignorant of the process. Do you know how much ignorance there is out there about practically every field there is? Frankly, in my opinion, more confusion would have been caused had the Society offered information that specific. I mean, look how stupid (not meant as derogatory) some of the replies are to those who have offered the bald truth about how innocuous such a filing really is. I say stupid because the information was presented simply enough to understand. The only thing left is to spell it out with a crayon.
Regardless of how you analyze it, the Society did indeed associate itself with the Jimmy Swaggart ministries when it filed that brief.
Frenchy, what can I say? That statement of yours is just plain wrong. Go learn about it. Then we can discuss it again one day, but not before.
Friend
Seven

Armani silk is what all the best dressed French knights are wearing these days- beneath their suits. Pardon me but I must take my leave of this far too serious kingdom.
Scorpion

I was wondering, with the Societies 70 or so paid attorneys on staff, why did they not file a seperate Brief? Why did they choose to file a brief with Jimmy Swaggart ministries and take the chance of being associated with Christendom?
Frenchy

I read your reply, friend and I disagree with your assesment. You use the terms 'ignorant' and 'stupid'toward those who don't see your point of view. I believe it's time you realize that there exists the possibility that you might not be correct. Infering that others are ignorant because they don't see it your way does not do anything for your argument.
Go learn about it. Then we can discuss it again one day, but not before.
Your statement betrays your purpose. Your assumed position is that you are right and anyone and everyone that can't see that is wrong. Your mind is closed and you are here for the sole purpose of imposing that view on someone else. I am here to share my opinions with others and to consider their views on matters.
I find that type of attitude very offensive. From this point on I will not be replying to any of your posts. I've had well over thirty years of having things shoved down my throat and being told to shut up until I understand. I won't take anymore.
Friend

SC
I was wondering, with the Societies 70 or so paid attorneys on staff, why did they not file a separate Brief? Why did they choose to file a brief with Jimmy Swaggart ministries and take the chance of being associated with Christendom?
First of all, your comment ignores that fact that filing amicus curiae does not associate a person with anythign but their own argument (i.e. opinion, point of view). That is all it does.
Why didn’t the Society seek such a ruling away from the JSM case? That is the BEST question that has so far been asked on this thread. The reason is simple. Past court decisions favored our distribution efforts as they existed back then. In the JSM case a lower court had made certain rulings that, if left to stand, had the potential to threaten the tax-exempt status of our literature distribution efforts. Until that lower court ruling there was nothing to file for or against because everything was fine as it existed prior to it.
The reason for filing amicus curiae on the case involving JSM was because it is easier to argue for overturning a lower court ruling than it is to argue overturning a Supreme Court ruling. If the Society had waited it would have taken too much time to get a ruling, which would have started in a lower court. The lower court would have been obligated to lean in favor of a higher court ruling. Again, the best way to deal with things of this nature is by filing at the point of impact. Just for such occasions that law allows the filing of amicus curiae.
Do you better understand now?
Frenchy
I apologize if you feel I am shoving anything down your throat. That is not my intention and, like you, I do not appreciate it myself (not that you have done it). My use of terms like ignorant and stupid is purely from a scientific perspective. When I say, “ignorant” I mean “doesn’t know better about this subject.” When I say, “stupid” I mean “could have known better about this subject.” That is all that I mean with those expressions, and even it is said out of my frustration. In no way are those terms meant to be taken personally as if those to whom they might apply are less than I am, because they certainly are not.
As for the possibility that I am wrong, yes, that is a possibility and will always be one. My frustration is that various persons—you for instance—keep saying that but you offer nothing but conjecture and opinion as evidence, which is no evidence whatsoever. Even anecdotal evidence would be better than that, which is hardly evidence. The difference between my possibly being wrong and the rebuttals so far is that my offering of conclusions can be substantiated by reviewing letters and past news items, and consulting some legal research material. In the case that I am wrong—which is a possibility—then show me where I am wrong, don’t just say, “Friend, you are wrong.”
You said:
Your statement betrays your purpose. Your assumed position is that you are right and anyone and everyone that can't see that is wrong. Your mind is closed and you are here for the sole purpose of imposing that view on someone else. I am here to share my opinions with others and to consider their views on matters.
I find that type of attitude very offensive. From this point on I will not be replying to any of your posts. I've had well over thirty years of having things shoved down my throat and being told to shut up until I understand. I won't take anymore.
My purpose on this thread: To deal with facts. It is just that simple.
My assumed position (regarding the subject matter): To represent facts and dispute conjecture.
My assumed position (between us): Less than you. I love all my neighbors and want to help them as much as possible—they are all greater than I am. My fondest wish is that I speak those words in complete honesty to myself.
I don’t care what people want to believe. I do care when they start sharing conjecture as if it is conclusive. Doing that hurts those that don’t know better. In that case I try to help, though I get frustrated along the way (as do we all).
As a pendant point, I have not told you to shut up until you understand. I said, “Go learn about it. Then WE can DISCUSS it again one day, but not before.” I am certainly not bold enough to tell anyone to shut up. I regret that you are left with such an impression. If I were not so thick-skinned from the same sort of nonsense you have been exposed to for the last 30 years I would take umbrage that you had contorted my words. I give you the benefit of a doubt though. Most likely my overall approach led you to the conclusion that you made.
Since my attitude has apparently come across differently than desired then I offer this open and personal apology to you and others who may feel the same way but didn’t say it. I love you all. Again, I apologize.
Hopefully the two of us can agree to disagree on some issues and still interchange. Whether we again converse is, of course, up to each of us. I cannot help but present myself in a straightforward and direct way. If something about that is disturbing then I ask that you inform me just as you so kindly did in this instance. That gives me the opportunity to alleviate what may be just misunderstanding. It is not my intention to denigrate anyone or their views (with the exception of immoral views that is).
Your
Friend
waiting

Dear Friend,
In REAL life (as compared to computers), I have a failing of getting insulted when words are written as to a perceived ignorance and stupidity.
I also looked up the word "denigrate" which you held out that you would do to anyone with immoral views.
Websters: Denigrate: to blacken, to cast aspersions on, defame, to deny the importance or validity of, belittle.
I personally feel that we have said nothing on this forum immoral for human dignity. But we sure don't want the Society or our elders to know we're here. Why, we are of the strong impression that they would think our questions/comments on blood, Jimmy, voting, etc. would be immoral because we're talking about them. I strongly believe that we would be viewed by the Society as having immoral, or apostate, views. That is just my unlearned (gentler than ignorant or stupid) opinion.
BTW, you seem quite well versed in the legal arena. Are you an attorney, paralegal, etc? This knowledged shared with us would definitely help us to weight your legal comments.
Again, BTW, the attorney who I asked, did tell me that a Friend of the Court Brief is not something to be entered into lightly - the names are linked together in record for as long as there are records. He did agree that WT did not have to agree with Jimmy, but that surely they agreed with his stand against taxation of Bible stuff (Jimmy had t-shirts, cups, hats, etc.)
Even lawyers can disagree, obviously, that's why they argue before a judge.

What is an Amicus Brief

Share this