Legal question

by kenpodragon 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Dazed

  First of all, if you don't agree with what they teach, what difference does it make if you are DF'd or not? Not associating with bad influences actually IS a bible scripture, so why would you want to associate with a "cult"?

  Secondly, do you have any documentation backing up the claim that the courts supported un-disfellowshipping someone, if that is in fact what you are claiming?

  I'm not asking to be argumentative, but I like to have proof, not speculation or word-of-mouth. That's why I'm here...
• 

  kenpodragon

  I am not sure if you understood my question enough for me to understand yours.

  My point is, could you say you entered into a agreement before you were old enough to understand the implications and thus over turn it. Thus, you would not be DF'ed ... sense your stand as a minor did not have legal standing?

  As a added point ... it's a Ex-Jw site, can we not discuss points related to such? Also, I am not going to waste time calling around or checking the internet to prove a point like this, I know it ... so I will sit in the corner and feel real special that I knew something others didn't.

  Just wondering

  Dragon
• 

  Dazed

  Well, I do believe I understood your initial question. The answer is, depending on the state you entered into the agreement in, that no, a person under the age of (insert your state's guideline here) can NOT be held liable for a legal contract entered into unless that contract is ratified by parties separate to and over the legal age required in your state with guardianship over the assumed minor (this is assuming you live in the US of course).

  To add clarification though, it would need to be determined if baptism is considered a "legal and binding" contract, or merely a personal one. For instance, in the state of California, a minor (under 18) could be held liable for a verbal or written agreement with another minor, but not with an adult. However, if that same minor made a verbal agreement with God to give 10% of everything they earned to God, and didn't, there is no way they could be held legally liable.

  My question was, what's the point? If you did get DF'd, why would you seek a legal resolution to the ruling? If you don't agree with the governing body which gave the original ruling, and that self-same governing body would be required to revoke the ruling, how much more weight would you give them for the revokation than the original ruling? Seems a moot point, and I'm wondering why someone would even ask the question.

  BTW, you are very special...

  Dazed...and thoroughly confused.

  Almost forgot...I'm still curious if you have any documentation of the claim that this has been done in the past, in court, or if this is just hearsay. Thanks.

  Edited by - dazed on 7 September 2002 2:27:3
• 

  mustang

  ditto de la Farkel. I've got PAGES of precedents.

  Basically, this is a matter of Church Law. It is in the precedents that the Secular Courts "are not qualified to sit judgment on a matter that is normally left for a Religious Tribunal". That's where the DF'ings go out the window. The "courts of the land" "don't do windows and they don't do Church Law". They won't touch it, not with your body parts, not with theirs.

  Next, by the time most people complain of this, they are "past their majority" and have been baptized AND not complained or left after turning 18 or whatever. That "ratifies" the questionable decision.

  To add more problems to this, the Baptism may not be viewed as a Contract, strictly speaking.

  All in all, WTS skates on this one, big time. Essentially, even when you look like you have a case, the courts will declare it a "religious matter" and disqualify themselves.

  There ARE ways to fight such, but you are going to have to use picky technicalities TWO OR THREE LEVELS DEEPER THAN THIS and spend LOTS OF TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY. (Hint: "fight fire with fire".)

  The simple one on the top won't cut it.

  Mustang

  Edited by - mustang on 7 September 2002 2:42:32
• 

  Dawn

  I was baptised at 13. I just don't see this changing.....they can agree that it's not a legally binding thing but you'll still get "shunned" (disassociated or marked) if you leave so what's the difference?
• 

  mustang

  Dazed, Kenpo,

  Go to my post at the end of this thread and start there. It is a LONG READ. You will get the flavor of HOW IT REALLY IS IN THE LAW ARENA about Churches & Church Law. The EXACT quote I'm looking for may not be in that one. And I don't have the original source for it. JT posted it years ago on H2O. I'm sure he took it from a fight that the "Legal Dept." got into.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=28409&site=3

  Mustang
• 

  happy man

  Perhaps it is a bigger issu that they have change the qestions,I have never say yes towhat they now ask,so this can bee some way if you want tonot bee baptised anymore, i now some cases in sweden wher peopel overoeld the baptism and sucsses.
• 

  mustang

  The quote I referenced is the "classic" defense used by the WTS for any such matter. Other courts may decide differently and it would go against these principles. That matter may lie "dormant" and may not be pursued along these lines. These conflicts CAN exist. I would like to see those DF overturnings (which is a DIFFERENT MATTER THAN 'ANNULLING' A BAPTISM) court references, for research purposes, too.

  Usually the Secular Courts "hit the silk" with something like the above referenced "bailout clause".

  Mustang

  Edited by - mustang on 7 September 2002 3:44:35
• 

  mustang

  Good point, happy man: some people left BEFORE the questions changed and thus DID NOT RATIFY THEM. Technically, they are DIFFERENT TYPE OF JW!!! Do they have their own Church?? If they care to proclaim such, they would!!!

  That gets REAL INTERESTING & you are now GETTING WARM!!!

  Mustang
• 

  mustang

  Happy Man, there is a principle or "legal doctrine" called Ratification. It means that you IMPLY Consent to a matter by NOT DISAGREEING.

  (For instance, your credit card rate in 2002 is 15%; you get a Notice in October 2002 that it will go to 20% in 2003. You can cancel your card, no problem. If you retain the card AND use it even once in 2003, you have agreed to those terms. That is a Ratification.)

  So, if you stayed on after the CHANGE OF THE QUESTIONS, and actively participated, that agreement Ratified the Specific Policy Changes IMPLICITLY. It is not necesary for you to be re-baptized or to be EXPLICITLY asked of you would like to re-new your VOWS!!!

  Those who left in, say 1975, NEVER RATIFIED the NEW JW's!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Mustang

  Edited by - mustang on 7 September 2002 3:38:1