I was wondering if anyone here has tried to sue the WTBTS for anything that had gone on with them personally. I have always wondered about that because so many people have so much "beef" with them that I felt for sure that someone could find some reason to sue them. I have a feeling after dateline airs there will be alot more coming into the public eye as far as what the witnesses have done.... and I feel as though there will be alot more witnesses that will step forward with molesttions, rape, and other wrong doings that have been going on. Please let me know what you guys think on this.
What about a lawsuit???"
by dissedsis 6 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Mulan
It would be a tough road. Religions have the right to shun, unfortunately. I believe it's been tried on that issue, and they lost. The pedophile issue is really different though.
Some of us have had success by threatening lawsuits. (not us) They have backed right off...........one threatened a restraining order if they didn't stop calling and coming to the house. They quit doing it.
Marilyn (aka Mulan)
"No one can take advantage of you, without your permission." Ann Landers -
dissedsis
well does anyone know the policy on what you can do about someone being a minor???? Or what about mental distress because I see so many people that successfully sue on mental distress terms????
-
RR
I only know ofr one case of the Society being sued, and that was for slander, and the society lost. That was in the 1940s. And the Society has to shell out 50,000.00 alot of money in those days.
The problem with the Society is, they have all the best resources, so they can tie things up forever, because money is always coming in. Why the others have to work, pay for lawyers, etc. When the Society loses, they appeal, more money, more time, people give up!
____________________________________
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! . http://www.food4jws.org/testimonies/rr144.htm -
-
mustang
I'm not a 'tower advocate' and I'm not trying to be a 'party-pooper', BUT, this is part of what you are/would be 'up against'. A very long quotation will follow in a secondary post. This gets 'technical'. Comments on what to look for are here:
Note such statements as "...If there is an earthly forum for adjudication of Plaintiffs' allegations, it is not the secular courts of this State. "
The Secular Courts (of the State) 'don't do windows' and "don't do Church Law'. Yes, Church Law IS alive and well; and the Secular Jurists DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. They won't touch it with YOUR BODY PARTS, much less theirs.
and
"... The reason for this ecclesiastical abstention doctrine rests squarely with the non-secular nature of the subject matter of the dispute:"
There is actually an 'ecclesiastical abstention doctrine' used in the legal profession. It lets them steer clear of Church Law; it starts w/ the 1st Amendment and goes from there. The 'Law' is full of 'doctrines' which are guiding principles for interpretation and administration of legal codes.
and
"...All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it."
Note two things here:
1) Implied consent-- IF YOU JOINED THE CHURCH, YOU WAIVED A LOT OF RIGHTS TO JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!
2) Government-- The Church IS CONSIDERED A GOVERNMENT and is recognized as such for purposes of Secular Law. Gee, professional courtesy is extended, as from one government to the next. So, the Church is kind of like an Embassy of a Foreign Country and the Priest/Minister is kind of like such an Ambassador!!!
3) I'm adding a 3rd, to round out the thought: you JOINED, you consented, it's a GOVERNMENT, complete w/ LAWS and you're stuck with them!!!
Note: Most people jump straight to 'separation of Church & State'. But frequently, religious cases HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE. It is only that the State is being asked to pass judgement on them. The State obligingly maintains 'separation of church & State' by steadfastly refusing to 'GET INTO IT'.
So the Secular Courts will refer you right back to the Religious Tribunal you are appealing against. The Secular Courts will tell you that 'we are not competent to deal with this'. You are hosed!!!
Just give some land for a Kingdom Hall and try getting it back!!!
Mustang
-
mustang
Credit for this goes to 1/JT. This came from 'old H2O'. The quotations:
LEGAL ANALYSIS
[16] The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and art VI, §3
of the South Dakota Constitution preclude civil courts from entertaining
religious disputes over doctrine, leaving adjudication of those issues to
ecclesiastical tribunals of the appropriate church. The fact that a portion
of the dispute involves property claims does not preclude this constitutional
application and protection. Even when possession or ownership of church prop-
erty is disputed in a civil court, "there is substantial danger that the State
will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on
behalf of groups espousing particular doctrinal beliefs." Milivojevich, 426 US
at 709, 96 SCt at 2380, 49 LEd2d at 162.[T]he First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may
play in resolving church property disputes. First Amendment values are
plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the
resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and
practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such controversies in order
to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever present of
inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating
secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern ... . The
First Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decided church property
disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.
Id. at 709-10, 96 SCt at 2380-1, 49 LEd2d at 163. (Citations omitted).
Milivojevich is factually applicable as it involves a dispute between two
Bishops regarding who had the authority to control the church body, property
and assets. An attempt by a secular court to adjudicate such disputes
"frequently necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and
usage." Id. at 708, 96 SCt at 2380, 49 LEd2d at 162. It is improper for a
secular court to evaluate conflicting testimony concerning internal church
procedures. Id. at 717-18, 96 SCt at 2384-5, 49 LEd2d at 167-68. The reason
for this ecclesiastical abstention doctrine rests squarely with the
non-secular nature of the subject matter of the dispute:
The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the
establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious
associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious
doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of the contravened
questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical
government of the individual members, congregations, and officers within the
general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a
body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to
submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total
subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their
decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is
the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish
tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those
decisions should be binding of questions arising among themselves, that
those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance,
subject only to such appeals as the organization itself provides for.
Id. at 710-11, 96 SCt at 2381, 49 LEd2d at 163-4 (citing Watson v. Jones, 13
Wall 679, 728-29, 20 LEd 666 (1872)).[17] In Drevlow a minister sued the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church for the
torts of libel, negligence and intentional interference with his legitimate
expectancy of employment. 991 F2d at 469. He claimed the church improperly
put derogatory information about he and his wife in his personnel file.
Under church rules, this information precluded him from receiving a
pastorate at a Synod congregation. When considering the ecclesiastical
decisions of the Synod, the Eighth Circuit noted it did not have subject
matter jurisdiction over employment decisions where religious beliefs,
procedures or law were implicated. Id. at 471. See also Scharon v. St.
Luke's Episcopal Presbyterian Hosp., 929 F2d 360 (8thCir 1991) (claims of
chaplain against Episcopal hospital for employment discrimination dismissed
as involving religious questions); Kaufmann v. Sheehan, 707 F2d 355 (8thCir
1983) (claims of priest against Roman Catholic Church for defamation and
conspiracy dismissed as involving religious questions); Belin v. West, 864
SW2d 838 (Ark 1993) (claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress,
defamation and tortious interference with business expectation dismissed as
Bishop's authority over employment of minister by congregation rested on
religious doctrine); O'Conner, 885 P2d 361; Pierce v. Iowa-Missouri
Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 534 NW2d 425 (Iowa 1995); Parish of
the Advent v. Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, 426 Mass 268,
688 NE2d 923 (1997); Basich v. Board of Pensions, Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, 540 NW2d 82 (MinnApp 1995) cert denied, 519 US 810, 117
SCt 55, 136 LEd2d 18 (1996) (dispute over church investment of pension funds
involved ecclesiastical issues of church policy).(10)
[18] Secular courts will adjudicate disputes under the "neutral principles
of law" doctrine. Jones v. Wolf, 443 US 595, 99 SCt 3020, 61 LEd2d 775
(1979). We discussed this doctrine in Foss v. Dykstra:
The neutral-principles approach calls for a completely secular examination
by civil courts into church documents, deeds to the property in question,
state statutes and other relevant evidence to determine ownership. The key
to the neutral-principles approach is that such determination is to be made
"exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property
law familiar to lawyers and judges."342 NW2d 220, 222 (SD 1983) (citing Foss v. Dykstra, 319 NW2d 499, 500 (SD
1982) (quoting Jones, 443 US at 603, 99 SCt at 3025, 61 LEd2d at 785)).
However, as determined in Jones, the neutral-principles of law rationale
runs afoul of the First Amendment and likewise art VI, §3 of the South
Dakota Constitution when church doctrine and policy "pervade" the documents
governing the church, which in the case before us are the colony's Articles
of Incorporation and By-Laws. Plaintiffs counter that "[s]imply put the
Corporation, Colony, and Church have turned their back on the Plaintiffs."
[19] Because the secular law knows no heresy, is committed to the support
of no religious dogma and the establishment of no sect, how are we to
adjudicate this dispute "to effectuate the tenets of the Hutterian Church,"
... and decide whether the Defendants are allowing the Plaintiffs to "live
together in a farming community, without individual ownership of personal or
real property and that they should devote their labors in harmony with the
dictates of God's teachings" Are the property claims to be adjudicated by
the courts of this State based upon "[a]ll rights of membership, grounds for
their expulsion and managerial rules over the members of the corporation and
over the property of the corporation [as] prescribed by the By-Laws none of
which shall be contrary to the tenets, rules or faith of the Hutterian
Church" With respect to the operation of the colony how do we apply the
following By-Law?All members of this Corporation shall recognize and abide by the rules of
the Hutterian church, and each of them and all of them do renounce the right
to hold private property; and each and all of the members agree to abide by
the rules, regulations, directives, and authority of the presiding bishop or
bishops of the Hutterian Church to which all members of this corporation,
through its local church, belong.[20] All acts complained of by the Plaintiffs arose from their
excommunication from the church and attempted expulsion from the colony. It
is suggested that we conduct an examination to determine whether these acts
were done with malice thus purporting to negate any claim of religious
privilege. Given the neutral principals of law limitation, how do we
determine whether malice exists by the Defendants under the following
"tenets, rules or faith of the Hutterian church" which was the basis for the
plaintiffs' excommunication and attempted expulsion?If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and
him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he
does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may
be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to
listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to
the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew, 18:15-18 (Revised Standard Version, 1952 Ed). As in Jones, issues
of church doctrine and policy are pervasive. 443 US at 609, n7, 99 SCt at
3028, n7, 61 LEd2d at 788, n7. "It is axiomatic that the guidance of the
state cannot substitute for that of the Holy Spirit and that a courtroom is
not the place to review a church's determination of 'God's appointed.'"
Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F2d 1164, 1170 (4thCir
1985).[21] Plaintiffs in their brief concede all actions they complain of either
occurred at the colony or involve its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.
This colony was founded in 1941. The record is void of any discord among the
colony members prior to the current religious schism.[22] Another Hutterite Colony schism occurred in Wollman v. Poinsett
Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 844 FSupp 539 (DSD 1994). After analyzing the
dispute provoked by the Rev. Kleinsasser-Rev. Wipf controversy, the court
concluded:The Court is unable to envision any set of facts which would more entangle
the Court in matters of religious doctrine and practice. The religious
communal system presented in this case involves more than matters of
religious faith, it involves a religious lifestyle. Any individual Hutterian
colony member's entire life--essentially from cradle to grave--is governed
by the church. Any resolution of a property dispute between a colony and its
members would require extensive inquiry into religious doctrine and beliefs.
It would be a gross violation of the First Amendment and Supreme Court
mandates for this Court to become involved in this dispute.
Id. at 543. (Emphasis added).[23] We agree with this analysis. The record indicates there is no
separation of religious life from a secular life in a Hutterite colony
because there is no separate secular life. The colony is run and its
members, whether the followers of Rev. Kleinsasser or Rev. Wipf, all conduct
their lives on religious absolutes based on the Bible and the Ten
Commandments, "Thou shalt ... and Thou shalt not." There are no separate
secular shades of gray. Likewise, suing every man, woman, child and baby in
their individual capacity who remain in the congregation is simply the same
as suing the colony church congregation as the individual members renounce
all rights to private ownership of property as a requirement for continued
membership in the colony and its church. Plaintiffs in their complaint
concede the core of the dispute when they declare both the Plaintiffs and
Defendants are "members of the Hutterian church located at the Bur Oaks
Hutterian Brethren ... and Tschetter Colony ... ."[24] We are not ecclesiastical jurists of the Hutterite faith and have no
constitutional basis to interfere with this religious dispute. If there is
an earthly forum for adjudication of Plaintiffs' allegations, it is not the
secular courts of this State. Kaufman, 707 F2d at 359. For the above reasons
we hold adjudication of Plaintiffs' claims by the courts of this state is
precluded by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and art
VI, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution. As such, we affirm the circuit
court.