Watchtower Motion to Dismiss - DENIED

by jst2laws 64 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • jst2laws
    jst2laws

    Hello Sam,

    Motions to dismiss are standard. Most defendants file such motions on the faint hope that the motion will succeed, all the while knowing that they usually are denied. Even cases that are not particularly strong are usually allowed to go forward.

    You have made a good point. This, however, is not a standard case. Counts 1 through 7 are rare enough as far as charges against a religious entity. They charge "malicious, fraudulent, and bad faith conduct" on the part of the WT. But Count 8, "Wrongful disfellowshipping", has no precedent in Tennessee case law. The courts traditionally shy away from anything that gets too close to the issue of seperation of church and state which may be what the WT was counting on. But the judge seems to have leaned toward the plaintiffs insistence that, even lacking legal precedence in the state of Tennessee, this may be an example of "wrongful disfellowshipping" in an attemp to 'silence' church members who would be 'whistle blowers'.

    This is not just new to Tennessee. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs this could set a precedent in most if not all the states (There may have been a successful case of this sort in Canada). I agree though that we should not get our hopes to high. This is just another step in this processes but one in the right direction.

    Good to hear from you,

    Jst2laws

  • Singing Man
    Singing Man

    Yes keep on keeping on, someone is behind you, and I think he is big and strong (Jah).

  • Simon
    Simon

    Yeah !!! Great news

    I'd love to see Joe and Barbs faces when they got this news too.

  • Panda
    Panda

    This is good news. I am especially happy because as long as this case in in the system it will get some publicity. Good for the Andersons and bad for the WTS. I am grateful for people like these two.

    Panda hugs the Andersons and their lawyer

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    How are they doing financially? Do they need our support, or are they holding their own against the fiancial guns of the WTS??

  • Angharad
    Angharad

    Yay great news

    Hope all goes well Joe and Barbara

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    Go Andersons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • blondie
    blondie

    Unless I missed it, Steve, can you tell us now what the question was that was asked in court that the WT lawyer hesitated to answer?

    Thanks.

    Blondie

  • waiting
    waiting
    You have made a good point. This, however, is not a standard case. Counts 1 through 7 are rare enough as far as charges against a religious entity. They charge "malicious, fraudulent, and bad faith conduct" on the part of the WT. But Count 8, "Wrongful disfellowshipping", has no precedent in Tennessee case law. The courts traditionally shy away from anything that gets too close to the issue of seperation of church and state which may be what the WT was counting on. But the judge seems to have leaned toward the plaintiffs insistence that, even lacking legal precedence in the state of Tennessee, this may be an example of "wrongful disfellowshipping" in an attemp to 'silence' church members who would be 'whistle blowers'.

    This is not just new to Tennessee. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs this could set a precedent in most if not all the states (There may have been a successful case of this sort in Canada).

    Hey Steve -

    Thanks for "Sharing The Good News of the Kingdom" with us.....good news against the WTBTS Kingdom. It's one step - rather hurdle - won.

    All the hurdles are necessary to win to continue. It's not much different than a war......many battles fought to win/lose the final outcome of the war.

    If the Andersons and their good attorneys win this long battle........the precedent against the WTBTS could be staggering - in money & precious rules.

    I hope it's hammered into the attorneys that df'ing FOUR jw's the week before they appeared on Dateline is highly significant.........Whistleblowers indeed. How is that different than a cigarette company firing an employee right before they appeared before a congressional hearing.......to show that he was just a disgruntled *former* employee? Particularily when shown that NO JW is to listen/speak to a *former* jw/slanderer/apostate/sperm of satan....or the active jw can be df'd/da'd theirselves for this act.....which I think can be proven in their writings.

    Thanks again - any good news is more than we had before!

    waiting

  • FreeFallin
    FreeFallin

    ((((((((((((Barbara and Joe Anderson))))))))))))

    Wonderful news!!!!

    Kat

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit