Legal Question: How Strong is Barbara's Case?

by Room 215 57 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hawkaw

  Respectfully Alan,

  I am no where near your optimism. As Mad Apostate/AngryXJW has pointed out and I also agree with, there is a lot that has to be looked at in this case and as stated the court cannot make a "determination" of anything that relates to a religious doctrine. Only the Religion can define things such as what "bad association" means the courts cannot do anything about it. The courts can only determine if a religious leader honestly and in good faith believes in their doctrine, and unless I am missing something, that does not apply in this case.

  Has the WTS said something "publicly" that hurts Barbara? In her mind of course and in my mind, yes she has been terribly hurt by what these Bastards have stated. But enough to get a court to agree in a tort case? Well .... in my mind .... it will be a tough one to prove especially with a bunch of jerks who don't mind using "lies by omission" arguments and can hide behind the freedom or religion clause. In my mind, it will be tough enough to get this one to trial.

  As Amasing has pointed out, Barbara will need a good lawyer(s) to provide really good advice as to how to proceed.

  hawk
• 

  AngryXJW

  Dutchie:____
  
  
  As you should be aware, it is NOT defamation for the WTS to state that Barb is being "investigated" for "anything", so long as they are doing so.____
  
  
  Then, when the WTS states that their investigation is directed toward "possible" "serious sins" such as "apostasy" or "causing divisions", such "terms" are defined by the WTS themselves. So, even if the WTS publicly stated that Barb was "guilty" of such acts, how could a secular court question the definitions of such terms when the WTS is authority for such definiions?
  ____
  
  
  Again, as you should know, the mere occurrence of "damages" in this situation is irrelevant unless the statments are proven to be lies (intentional statements of falsehood made with the intent to do harm).
• 

  Dutchie

  Again, as you should know, the mere occurrence of "damages" in this situation is irrelevant unless the statments are proven to be lies (intentional statements of falsehood made with the intent to do harm).

  But Angry,isn't that the point? They made intentional statements of falsehood with the intent to do harm. They lied and they realized that by so doing, she would suffer. They accused her of serious sin, apostacy, causing division. All of the charges were false and she was caused to suffer. She sustained severe psycholigical damage and is seeking compensation. Well?
• 

  hawkaw

  Dutchie,

  The burden of proof is on Barbara to show that they lied. Notice that Mad Apostate/AngryXJW is using the "possible" word and the word "investigating". Again the freedom of religion clause also prevents any court to decide on a doctrine issue such as disfellowshipping. This has been confirmed in a case in (I believe) Maine that went up to the Supreme Court of Maine and was refused to be heard by the "supremes". The WTS ended up winning.

  As far as I am concerned it will be a tough case to even get this to a jury.

  hawk
• 

  JT

  I love barb to death and i hope she wins, but i do have my concerns due to the way the USA often times views religion. the comment was made:

  "They accused her of serious sin, apostacy, causing division. All of the charges were false"

  i am no lawyer but i have to wonder in view of the fact that most religions are allowed to make up thier own rules as to what constitues :

  1. serious sin

  2. , apostacy,

  3. causing division.

  from my understanding i am willing to be corrected, each religion here in the us has the right to define what is sin.

  your sin may not be my sin

  case in point the Armish out of lancaster . PA , having modern day tools, Tv, washer and dryer, lawn mower . elctric honda plower generator to light your house is

  considered a sin,

  point being we may not consider it sinnful, but what judge is willing to define what a religion should consider a sin, apostasy or causing division.

  this is the area that concerns me- we all know that the wt is a joke, but these boys know how to use CASE LAW, esp in the area of explusion from within-

  one of the interesting comments i read was in ref to how IT WAS THE MANNER IN WHICH SHE WENT ABOUT HANDLING THE MATTER, SHE WENT PUBLIC

  now of course we all know that she could have accomplished nothing it she had tried to approach the bros- WHAT A SISTER telling the bro what to do, you must be joking,

  but wt will play on the she knew that was not how we handled issues within the congo

  yes i will be the first to say that they dogged her, but i also know that they will be playing the Church card close to thier chest

  in that they got the legal right to make up thier own internal rules and governing procedures

  and for years the courts have tried to stay out of that hornets nest--

  someone made the comment that the climate is changing and that should go along way in the mind of the court -

  the issue of child molestation is HOT RIGHT NOW so her timing could be a big win for her

  that is why it is so important to get a lawyer who is a former jw or at least knows how jw operate, but usually that means being a former jw,

  former jw we know the lingo and the double speak that even the best lawyer who is not a former jw will not know

  reason being is we fully understand the impact of both written and unwritten rules in the org

  but i do hope her well

  All of the charges were false and she was caused to suffer.
• 

  Dutchie

  Hawk, in the last analysis though, we don't want the court to decide on the doctrinal issue. We want the court to go beyond that and to decide whether they set out to harm her (I believe they did) and when they made these accusations against her she was psychologically harmed. I am not saying that the case would be a "slam dunk" case, but I believe that these matters should at least be tested in the court. Churches in general get away with too much in the name of religion. We have got to try and change some of the harm they do i the name of religion and the way to do that is to try these issues in a court of law. I think its worth a try and I also feel that the climate is ripe for a change.
• 

  cellomould

  Yeah, let's see the look on their faces when the WT is revealed to be a part of Babylon the Great! Scary thing is, the end of religion as we have known it will not be far in the future. It is bound to happen in some way or another, though probably not by government sactioned action. But the fanatics will still think they are being persecuted.

  cellomould
• 

  Dutchie

  JT< I agree with you. The organization has the right to make their own internal rules and laws. However, they do not have the right to cause someone harm because of them. So my point is that we want the challenge not their doctrine or their rules, but when those rules are applied intentionally to harm someone, then they should be challenged.
• 

  Farkel

  Naeblis,

  : agree that even if she lost, the publicity would be terrible for them. But can she afford to go up against the Law Machine?

  As I understand it, she has an attorney who's taken on many Churchs and is working pro bono for her.

  The "Law Machine" is every bit as much as a myth as O.J.'s "Dream Team." The only thing they have going for them is that they represent that sacrosanct entity known as "a religion." Religions are not immune to everything. Ask the Bakkers, the Hari Krishnas or the Scientologists.

  Although it's by no means a done-deal, I'm as confident as AlanF that Barb is going to make the WTS wish they never fucked with her. If you know that lady, you'll know why.

  Farkel
• 

  detective

  Well, I'd imagine it'd be hard being a part of a precedent setting case. If barbara does sue, I'm sure it will do alot for the "cause" though I hope it won't be at her expense. She's already done so much.

  Speaking of viable cases, I was wondering if a spouse who ends up divorcing as a result of their husbands/wife conversion could sue local elders (and/or the society) for "alienation of affection". I believe willful interference in a pre-existing relationship that causes emotional harm was the basis for a case a few years ago? In that scenario, an ex-wife sued her husbands lover, I think. So, I was tossing around the "alienation of affection" suit as a possibility in some situations.

  Basically, as much as I hate encouraging overly litigious actions, it seems the only way to really cause the society woe, is to publicize their craziness and/or sue them senseless.