Mark your calendars - Oral arguement in Barbara Anderson case-APRIL 14th

by BONEZZ 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BONEZZ

  Ed Bell will be arguing for Barbara Anderson in the Tennessee Court of Appeals on April 14th. This case may go to the Supreme Court. It is very important for a lot of us.The WTBS hides behind the First Amendment whenever they can (usually in money related cases) and then disposes of the rights of individuals who wish to leave, coerces families and causes families to break apart. For some of us there may be no case but for many this case is very important.

  Those who played by WTBS rules and/or got DF'd may not have a case. Many though, have chosen to walk/fade away without being left alone (I'm not sure how DAing will play into this). Those who have been aggressively pursued by elders and not left alone may have a legitimate claim.

  I have always maintained (& still do) that the WTBS is guilty of slander and liable because of what they do to the DA'd and sometimes fade-aways. That is, they sometimes announce from the platform and write in their own publications, to treat the person as a "fornicator or drunkard", as well as other things. This type of treatment cannot be defended or protected by the 1st Amendment.

  It is malicious defamation! It would be the same as if your son quit the Boy Scouts and the Troop Leader announced to everyone that they should treat the former member as "a sissy or drug abuser." There's no way that Troop Leader would get away with that kind of character assassination...and the WTBS should not be able to either! If you have been aggressively pursued by elders and such I urge you to contact Mr. Bell?s office at 843-546-2408. Things like elders telling people they shouldn?t associate with their own family members for whatever reason. You might also try an email to his assistant, Rachel Ridgeway at [email protected] . Let's think good thoughts for Barbara. I?m going to lunch now.

  -BONEZZ

  PS. IT Support - Go for it and good luck.
• 

  bikerchic

  I know Barbara has waited a very long time for her day in court. I sure hope it goes well for her even though she said she is doing it purely to expose the WTS for the lies and cover up of abused JW's I personally hope she gets maga bucks for all the suffering they've caused her and Joe.

  (((((((((((((Barbara&Joe))))))))))))

  Go get 'em!

  Kate
• 

  jst2laws

  Hello Bonezz, I would like to clarify a couple of points so people do not get unrealistic hopes.

  Many though, have chosen to walk/fade away without being left alone (I'm not sure how DAing will play into this). Those who have been aggressively pursued by elders and not left alone may have a legitimate claim.

  The Anderson case is much more than this. The Andersons were aggressively pursued, yes, but could hardly be compared to someone who is fading away and just wants to be left alone. Barbara went on Dateline with inside information and the WT was trying to silence her before Dateline aired and then discredit her after it aired. While this is very bad behavior, trying to silence a whistle blower and then punishing them for publicly exposing what may prove to be criminal behavior, this action by the WT is not typically taken against the average JW trying to fade.

  I have always maintained (& still do) that the WTBS is guilty of slander and liable . . they sometimes announce from the platform and write in their own publications, to treat the person as a "fornicator or drunkard", as well as other things. It is malicious defamation! It would be the same as if your son quit the Boy Scouts and the Troop Leader announced to everyone that they should treat the former member as "a sissy or drug abuser."

  You have two different issues mixed here.

  1 It makes a great deal of difference if a religious organization does this compared to a non-religious organization such as the boy scouts 2 Most often the only comments made officially by a JW congregation is that an individual is no longer a JW (by dfing or disassociation). They do little to discourage the destructive rumor mill and sometimes encourage it, however, it would be difficult to make a case of this.

  What is different with the Anderson case is that the WT spokesmen went outside the congregation to the media to publicly damage the reputation of Barbara Anderson by suggesting immorality, denying the Dateline program had anything to do with their actions. Once the dust settles on this case and a judgment is received against the Watchtower perhaps Ed Bell will want to continue pursuing the WT to redefine the limits of "ecclesiastical privilege". But, until then I wonder if he really wants to hear from every one of us who has been treated unfairly? You have done some fine research. Good that you are interested in this case. As you say, all of us should be. Jst2laws
• 

  BONEZZ

  jst2laws....You are correct in stating there are differences between the Anderson case and others. They all have various differences and nuances. I do believe if the Anderson case is decided favorably though, it will open the door for others who have been wrongfully pursued.

  1 It makes a great deal of difference if a religious organization does this compared to a non-religious organization such as the boy scouts

  This is true but there have been court cases in which religious organizations have been on the losing end of the arguement such as...a recent case where a Washington religious sect encouraged people to leave their non-believing spouses. A husband of a believer sued for alienation of affection. The religion responded with a 1st Amendment defense. The court rejected it stating, "One does not, under the guise of exercising religious beliefs, acquire a license to wrongfully interfere with familial relationships...Ill will, intimidation, threats, or reckless recommendations of family seperation directed toward alienating the spouses, where found to exist, nullify the privledge and project liability."

  2 Most often the only comments made officially by a JW congregation is that an individual is no longer a JW (by dfing or disassociation). They do little to discourage the destructive rumor mill and sometimes encourage it, however, it would be difficult to make a case of this.

  You are correct in stating that not much is said from the platform anymore, other than ..."remember that disassociated ones are to be treated the same as disfellowshipped ones." I have heard that on more than one occassion. And if you want "official" policy of the WTBS, you have the "official" Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock elder guidebook, (1991), p. 103, under the heading of Proper View of Disfellowshipped and Disassociated Persons where they state, "Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah." There are tons more references from their official publications about avoiding family members, not eating with them, etc. If quotes from their publications are not "official" I don't know what is.

  But, until then I wonder if he really wants to hear from every one of us who has been treated unfairly?

  I never said that. I said he may wish to hear from those who have been aggressively pursued. That eliminates a lot of us. AND...I would never post a name, number and/or email address without permission from the people involved.

  -BONEZZ
• 

  metatron

  I'd like to hear more about that Washington state case. If it holds up, it could force the Society to change.

  Sounds very good.

  metatron
• 

  one

  For related info and "PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION" see

  http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/069wn2d/069wn2d0536.htm

  and

  http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/bardin_david_psy_coercion_human_rights.htm
• 

  BONEZZ

  My apologies. One posted the site where the Washington case can be reviewed. It is an older case , not "recent" like I said. I got my dates mixed up with another case...a California case where (I believe in 1998, Bertolucci v Aananda Church of God-Realization) a woman successfully sued a church for emotional distress and fraud, and won. There was also a court case against the Unification Church in which I believe the plaintiffs won.

  A good source of info about lawsuits against churches comes from the insurance carriers underwriting them. As one insurance attorney put it, "The 1st Amendment embraces two concepts - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. Therefore, the courts may entertain claims against clergy for intentional misconduct."

  The WTBS is certainly well versed in constitutional law and will pull Paul v Watchtower out of the hat, ironically a Washington case, that they prevailed in. I've never said it wouldn't be a rough road but if enough people have varifiable horror stories about over-enthusiastic elders giving bad counsel and families in turmoil, it could be enough. I know they will never lose their "right" to shun but I hope their days of labeling people they don't like come to an end soon. Any entity that supports the destruction of the family relationship, no matter what their reasoning, should be in the least investigated, and certainly not protected by a misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment...imo. In the meantime let's pull for Barbara Anderson.

  -BONEZZ
• 

  loveis

  If the case is at the appeal court level, this must mean that the WTS won the case at the trial court level (successfully getting it dismissed by the judge on "summary judgment," etc., or something similar to that.) Any information on exactly how things went down at the lower court level? And, why didn't anyone on this board have news of it happening at the time?
• 

  jst2laws

  Hello Loveis,

  If the case is at the appeal court level, this must mean that the WTS won the case at the trial court level

  This is true most often. However, in the Anderson case all 8 allegations were approved to go to trial but the WT requested an interlocutory on the charge of "wrongful disfellowshipping". This is a request for judgment on a question that may need settling before the case procedes to the next stage. There was no statute in Tennessee law that covered such a charge. The judge seemed to feel it should go to trial anyway but granted the interlocutory on that one charge. It would have been an issue the WT would have used to appeal after the trial so it may have been prudent to allow it. The other seven counts will go to trial regardless of the appeal courts decision on this one charge.

  Any information on exactly how things went down at the lower court level? And, why didn't anyone on this board have news of it happening at the time?

  I think this was mentioned somewhere on a thread asking what the status was of the Anderson case. Since the case will yet go to court regardless of the appeal court's decision on count 8 the plaintifs are simply waiting to get this question settled so as to procede.

  Jst2laws
• 

  cruzanheart

  Maybe the Watchtower lawyers are stalling in the hopes that Armageddon will come before they have to go to court!

  Nina