Watchtower Attorneys Stumped (page 2)

ARoarer

Victims who were disfellowshipped for speaking up were done so on other "charges" of wrong doing. This is how they cover themselves.

Room 215

Aroarer, don't they dredge up the catchall ``causing divisions" accusation in such cases?

jst2laws

Aroar,

Victims who were disfellowshipped for speaking up were done so on other "charges" of wrong doing. This is how they cover themselves.

Unfortunately this is terribly true. Mr. Bell is also aware that the traumatic consequences of molestation often manifests itself in behavior that the Watchtower JC's act upon. If a victim of molestation as a JW ( or a family member or friend) was clearly DF'd for going to the police or speaking up in the congregation his office would likely want to her from you. If you were DF'd on some other charge but feel it can be established as resulting from speaking out give them a call. Nice to hear from you again, Aroar. I'm working on more information about this and will put it up in an hour or two. Jst2

.

jst2laws

More about this case.

This is a Whistle Blower case against the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In May of last year we all waited anxiously for the airing of the NBC Date Line program. Just weeks before airing the WT went on attack to disfellowship the four JW's in good standing who had participated in the yet to air program. As you know all four were eventually disfellowshipped.

One of them, Barbara Anderson, filed a lawsuit against the Watchtower over one year ago accusing "wrongful disfellowshipping", alleging the Watchtower "fraudulently and maliciously formulated a plan designed to destroy the credibility of the participants in the broadcast."

The Watchtower has before the judge a "MOTION TO DISMISS' this case on the bases of the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine" and the "First amendment" which they feel bars the court from reviewing internal church action taken against a member for 'spiritual violations'. They are asking for the dismissal of all eight counts on this defense.

The attorneys for Barbara and Joe Anderson, (who has been added to this case as a plaintiff for wrongful disfellowshipping) argued that the Watchtower was trying to deceive the court by presenting this as a church action regarding 'spiritual violations'. They argued the Watchtower's action was not religious but purely SECULAR in that they were trying to silence her, it was a "pretext for the true reason--viz., their efforts and desire to silence Barbara Anderson in her efforts to expose church conduct which effectively tolerated child sexual abuse. "

I will say it was in the context of 'tolerating child sexual abuse' that the judge asked his question over which the Watchtower attorneys were either stumped or very reluctant to respond. As you can see this is a whistle blower case directly related to the Watchtower Society's culpability in handling child molesters and their victims.

I hope this is enough information for now. More will become available as soon as the judge returns with his decision on the MOTION TO DISMISS in about thirty days. Meanwhile please do not focus too much on the "question" that stumped the Watchtower attorneys as much as the important fact that THEY WERE STUMPED.

Mr. Bell is serious about his invitation to call his office if you would like more information and especially if you have an experience with the Watchtower that might aid this case.

1-843-546-2408

This looks like a good one.

Jst2laws

integ

I don't know all the details of this case, but it would seem that if B. Anderson were discouraged/threatened with disfellowshipping for going to the authorities about a crime, that it could/should be a case of obstruction of justice. Sorry if im reiterating what's already been discussed.

Integ.

Big Tex

You lift up that rock, and there are all sorts of creepy crawlies they don't want you to see. Baby steps at first, then events will move faster.

"The district attorney tries to build his case with bricks. But his bricks are just like this playing card. He'll show you the width and he'll show you the height and make you think it's a real brick. But he won't show you how thin it is. I will, and his entire case will collapse like a house of cards." -- Joe Pesci, My Cousin Vinnie

jst2laws

Integ,

discouraged/threatened with disfellowshipping for going to the authorities about a crime, that it could/should be a case of obstruction of justice.

A good thought. My none expert thoughts on that would be that she was not in this instance trying to approach "authorities" but had simply accepted a request from Dateline to tell the public what she knew of the Watchtower's "conduct which effectively tolerated child sexual abuse."

minimus

It comes down to this: If I say that as long as you are in this religion, that you must follow the rules and dictates of the leadership, then it is either true or false.... Does religion have the right in a court of law to make up whatever rules they want? Can they change the rules along the way? Is it unlawful to disfellowship a person because the person continues to criticize the religion, in one form or another? Is it illegal to kick out a person that exposes wrongdoing in the leadership of the religion? From what I've seen over JW history, the Watchtower is always protected by separation of church and state. Even when the courts are uncomfortable with a Witness position, they usually yield to the church's position because it appears that the church can make almost ANY rule they want to and hide behind ecclesiastic privilege.

Mr. Kim

Watchtower Attorneys Stumped-?

Watchtower Attorneys Stumped

Share this