What is an Amicus Brief

by 3acrewood 37 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  undercover

  there is nothing shady about the Society filing an Amicus Brief in regard to this Swaggart thing. An Amicus Brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit

  The action by the WTS in and of itself regarding the Swaggart situation is not that big of a scandal....

  but...

  When you live your whole life being taught and convinced that all other religions are false and doomed for destruction, that worshippers of the true God do not have interfaith or in any other way associate with any other false religion and that the true religion, the one we were supposedly in, does not get involved in the affairs of the world, the actions of the WTS in this situation smacks of hypocrisy.

  Maybe it is being a bit nitpicky, charging them with hypocrisy, when they were just trying to be proactive in protecting their assets and trying to keep from being taxed. But it was the WTS who set themselves up on that pedestal of being oh, so righteous and above all other religions and man-made governments and organizations. So, it's only natural to be dissillusioned and upset when you see what you thought was God's organization fraternizing with God's enemies.

  Another thing that gives the charge of hypocrisy credence is that the WTS came out in the name of "simplifying" as to why they were eliminating the charge for publications and setting up a "donation" arrangement. I never knew about the Swaggart connection until after I left the JWs. I never knew it was about taxes and not about "simplifying".

  While this "scandal" wasn't about befriending a false religion, and it's not the scandal that becoming involved with the UN as an NGO is, and it's not be a doctrinal mistruth as 607/1914, it is another nail in the coffin as to the WTS being a lying and deceitful organization hiding behind the shroud of religion to protect its publishing empire.
• 

  Oroborus21

  Friend and 3acre have provided accurate information in this thread.

  Friend, your reply to Scorpion about why the Society filed an amicus brief with the Swaggart case and not a "separate brief" took the long way around to the explanation. The short answer is that it is the only way the Society could have weighed in on the matter under the circumstances.

  A person can't just pop-in and file with the U.S. Supreme Court, a case has to come through the system and the Court has to elect to hear the case. In this situation, the Society never would have raised the issue itself and in fact never had to raise it itself since since the Government wasn't going after the Society for due taxes it was going after JS Ministeries. JS Ministeries was selling books over the air, on TV, etc. Evidently the Society wasn't on the Gov's radar, or what Jehovah's Witnesses were doing by direct distribution of literature, or because JS Ministeries made for a better precedent - whatever the case, it appears that the Society wasn't the target or concern of the Gov - so it never had any reason to bring a complaint into the court system in the first place.

  It was only after the Swaggart case rose all the way to the Sup Ct that the Society needed to weigh in on the matter realizing that the issues presented in the case were important to itself. The function of an Amicus Curiae is to call the court's attention to some matter which it might otherwise overlook. The brief submitted in order to aid the court in reaching the right decision by supplying more information to the court and/'or to urge a particular resolution of the case because of its impact on the third party or the public.

  The bottom line is that filing an Amicus brief is not "sharing with Babylon" or any of that nonsense. Further, persons who are making a big deal about it, in addition to being in error, overlook the long history of cases when the Society and the ACLU were actually PARTNERS in their cases before the courts.

  The scandal or controversy is not the Society's involvement with the Swaggart case.

  The scandal or controversy is HOW the Society couched the "change in procedure" in the guise of "further refinement of Jah's Organization", in accord witht he New Light Principle, and the deliberate omission to mention that the Swaggart case was the real reason for the change AND the deliberate omission to mention that this new and wonderful refinement WASN'T being implemented GLOBALLY!!!

  Every Witness who was there at the time knows that the Society 1) didn't mention that the real reason for the Voluntary Donation Basis arrangement was to avoid sales taxes and 2) gave the impression that this was a refinement among ALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and within all of God's Household. Thus implying that the change would occur worldwide. As we all know now, that was not the case (and I might be wrong I am not sure but the last time I polled our International friends, there were still countries where the old payment arrangement was still going on - anyone with info on this?)

  Given all of that, I label this a Controversy and not a Scandal and perhaps a relatively minor controversy at that.

  -Eduardo
• 

  loveis

  (and I might be wrong I am not sure but the last time I polled our International friends, there were still countries where the old payment arrangement was still going on - anyone with info on this?)

  Eduardo:

  Please see my post above showing from the 2001 Yearbook that the complete donation basis went worldwide in January 2000 (that is, to all countries that were up until then still paying a set amount.)
• 

  Uzzah

  I wonder how many people realize this thread is 5 years old? Many of the participants aren't even around these parts any more.
  Great discussion tho. Ahh reminiscing about Friend's scathing denounciations but gawd I loved that guy! LOL
  Regarding the issue of amicus brief, it was hypocritical of the Society to file in the Swaggart case. While I was in Legal we were approached by a couple of different religious groups (including the Scientologiss twice) for us to file an Amicus brief. We refused because we didn't want to associate ourselves with other religions like that.
  The only Amicus brief we filed during my time in legal was in regards dissemination of public interest materials at airports and it wasn't a religious group that was initiating the case.
  I do bow however to loveis and her professional opinion of such matters. (and I don't bow easily!)
  
  Uzzah
• 

  ithinkisee

  there is nothing shady about the Society filing an Amicus Brief in regard to this Swaggart thing. An Amicus Brief is filed in cases in which the verdict could set a precedent that would or could have an adverse affect on other parties not involved in the suit

  But there is no doubt that if I filed a Friend of Court brief with Mormons, or with the Catholic Church, or something like that .... it would be considered a "stumbling" offense for sure ... and sanctions (i.e. loss of privileges or position) would be imposed against me.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  Cygnus

  I don't believe Friend is with us any longer, unfortunately.
• 

  Wasanelder Once

  *** w00 8/1 p. 5 Respect for Authority—Why Essential? ***

  As an honest citizen, a Christian maintains a good conscience. He knows that by subjecting himself to the superior authorities and paying due taxes, not only is he upholding the standard of the community in which he lives but he is also living in harmony with divine requirements.

  THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE, FORGET SWAGGART. RENDER TO CAESER YOU WTBTS HYPOCRITES. DO IT HERE AND IN FRANCE

  W.Once
• 

  Sunspot

  ***Maybe it is being a bit nitpicky, charging them with hypocrisy, when they were just trying to be proactive in protecting their assets and trying to keep from being taxed. But it was the WTS who set themselves up on that pedestal of being oh, so righteous and above all other religions and man-made governments and organizations. So, it's only natural to be dissillusioned and upset when you see what you thought was God's organization fraternizing with God's enemies.

  ```````

  I don't think it is nitpicking at all. It WAS all about the evil and sneaky WTS "protecting their asses" (pun intended) and to keep from being taxed. I didn't believe this when I was still a JW until I got the courage to go to the site and SEE this for myself! I didn't think that "those horrible, lying apostates" were lying any more. Seeing this info shook me terribly. I was seeing the beloved Org in a whole "new light" and it disturbed me tremendously.

  ***The scandal or controversy is HOW the Society couched the "change in procedure" in the guise of "further refinement of Jah's Organization", in accord witht he New Light Principle, and the deliberate omission to mention that the Swaggart case was the real reason for the change AND the deliberate omission to mention that this new and wonderful refinement WASN'T being implemented GLOBALLY!!!

  ````````
  THIS was what bothered me the most! The being LIED TO, and most of all, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I felt that we had the right to know what was going on and why. We were expected to "contribute" at every turn, but not allowed to know what was going on behind the scenes.

  As if THAT wasn't insulting enough----but then the Boyz-in-Writing decided to ah...can we say EMBELLISH THE TRUTH of the matter, and have it appear to "us" that the WTS had SUCH lofty ideals and the purest of intentions, rather than doing its utmost to go to any means they possibly COULD to slither out of paying what was Caesar's to Caesar. Add insult to injury here.

  All the fingerpointing the WTS has done at "other religions" has certainly come home to roost. I only wish we had bigger roosters to show them up on that "worldwide" basis they so love to boast about.

  Annie