Court case on DA/DF relevent to SilentLambs?

by Max Divergent 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Max Divergent

  I've not seen this US Court of Appeal case before but think it may be important re the SilentLamb cases and general DA/DF legal issues. After her DA, a Janice Paul sued the WTS because she was "Upset by her shunning by her former friends and co-religionists alleging common law torts of defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud, and outrageous conduct".

  The court dismissed her claim observing that "*883 [7] We find the practice of shunning not to constitute a sufficient threat to the peace, safety, or morality of the community as to warrant state intervention. The test for upholding a direct burden on religious practices is as stringent as any imposed under our Constitution. Only in extreme and unusual caseshas the imposition of a direct burden on religion been upheld. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 145, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy); Hill v. State, 38 Ala.App. 404, 88 So.2d 880 (1956) (snake handling)."

  I made a similar post on the sixth page of Bills earlier post (3 pages back now) but thought it relevant enough to raise here given the frequent discussions on suing the WTS over DA/DF.

  It seems that the First Amendment rights of the WTS to deal with its (former) members as it sees fit are solid, except where a serious threat to public (rather than personal) safety and morality are at risk. Maybe, just maybe the public risk and morality of speaking out against the concealment of the mishandling of Child Abuse cases is sufficient to see a legal review of the practice when applied like this.

  I just hope that if Bills to be DF that its for speaking to the media, not for disrespecting the Chair or wearing a wire or something silly like that.

  I got this from http://jehovah.to/legal/general/paul.htm and can only presume its authentic. The reference is:

  875 819 F.2d 875, 93 A.L.R.Fed. 737, 56 USLW 2007, Janice PAUL, a/k/a/ Janice Perez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendants-Appellee. No. 85-4012. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 7, 1986. Decided June 10, 1987.

  Cheers, Max

  (Edited for Divergent grammar!)

  (And again for Divergent Bolding!! Aghhh!!!!!!!)

  Edited by - Max Divergent on 19 July 2002 8:46:53

  Edited by - Max Divergent on 19 July 2002 8:48:18
• 

  Mary

  Well, we can only hope........You're right about the extenuating circumstances though. If it can be reasoned that Jehovah's Witnesses risk being shunned by all their family and friends (and condemned to a "spiritual death") if they go to the police to report child molestation, and therefore, many do NOT report it, well I think this would be reason enough for the State to step in and allow lawsuits against the Society, as a deterent to them DF'd anyone who speaks out against abuse.

  After all, you're not doing anything moral, scripturally or legally wrong by reporting this abuse, it's only the Governing Body's warped sense of decency that views this as "apostacy".
• 

  CornerStone

  Hello All,

  I think the legal systems attitude toward the Catholic Church of late has made the watchtower publishing company have a case of messy pants.

  I believe it is illegal to have confessed child rapist knocking on peoples doors and not let the authorities or the local community know. I even think it would be illiegal to "silence" the victim and victims families from warning other potential victims about the abuser.

  If both these conditions can be proven, ( and I have seen and heard much to confirm this ), then this could constitute a danger to the community, and could be prosecuted. JMHO.

  CornerStone
• 

  DakotaRed

  I think the real reason for DFing Bill or the rest will never be printed. In my opinion, that is why they all of sudden included that phrase about showing respect for the chair of the committee. They know they don't have a real leg to stand on, but by claiming that Bill did not show proper respect can use that as a legal excuse that would stand up in court.

  I see it as all dancing around the legal system to protect themselves and silence Bill and others who speak out.

  I hope it all ends up as a very high profile court case, myself. They may win by the letter of the law, but the court of public opinion will surely convict them.

  Lew W
• 

  Amazing

  The WTS is doing nothing illegal in DFing Bill, Barbara, or anyone else ... First Ammendment protection are strong in this regard ... and the WTS can DF them for any reason at any time, even ex-post-facto after inventing some new rule. No court in this country will allow interference with religion unless the situation is extreme, such as the Church of Satan attempting live human sacrifices as a religious ritual.

  The Watchtower is acting as they are for one simple reason: They are trying in their own awkward way to save face before their JWs followers. They must in their own minds find some reason to to get rid of Bill, Barbara, the Pandelo's and others. Technically, they need not find any reason. They could as easily send a letter to Bill telling him they have DF'd him, or simply announce his DFing. Period. The Watchtower wants the image that they bent over backwards to work with Bill and Barbara and did their damnest to save them, etc. blah, blah, blah.

  Where this might come into play is if a victim in their jurisdiction sues the local Elders and the Society as co-defendants in a civil action ... if the Court allows this DF action to be admitted by the Plaintiffs to support their contention the WTS and Elders acted in bad faith by proving their failure to comply with local reporting laws ... then the DF action could look very bad for the Watchtower in the minds of a jury.
• 

  metatron

  Exactly what I hope will happen.

  Use DF'ing as evidence that they have obstructed justice
  or intimidated witnesses to a crime.

  metatron
• 

  dungbeetle

  Janice Pauls' disfellowshiping was not an act in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy

  1) To hide a crime

  2) to preotect a criminal

  3) to hide Watchtower's ROLE in hiding the crime and protecting the criminal.

  4) to alter/effect change in a court's witnesses testimony

  Watchtower's expulsion/shunning of the 'fearless foursome' is obviously toward one or all of those four ends;

  THEREFORTE IT LOSES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS