why do ex-jws/jws get so disturbed by the fact that the wts filed an amicus brief in the swaggert case? do you suppose those miffed by that fact do not know how the filing of an amicus brief works and its purpose?
jimmy swaggert - gasp!
by seesthesky 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
seesthesky
it's a written argument a non-party to a legal controversy files when that non-party nonetheless will be affected by the outcome of the court's decision - filing one requires special permission from the reviewing appellate court
-
Odrade
amicus brief is aka a "friend of...," in other words, they are saying they supported Jimmy Swaggart and his PTL ministries in their petition before the court. Nice association with the harlot. You really must not know much about JWs if you don't understand why x-JWs find an amicus brief filed by the WTS in support of the PTL is a conflict of interests.
O
-
-
seesthesky
also - an amicus brief does not mean the party filing it necessarily supports either party involved in the actual controversy
-
-
Quotes
You are correct, Amicus means friend of the court, not friend of one of the litigants.
However, IIRC, the Amicus filed by WTBTS clearly and plainly argued in favour of Swagart's defence. And THAT is what is so shocking. Although they were, I have no doubt, only concerned about their own BOTTOM LINE, the only way they could attempt to protect their bottom line was to file a document which defended (or at least attempted to defend) Swagart.
~Quotes -
Odrade
Yes, an amicus brief is a "friend of the court" document. It clearly, in this case, was written in support of Jimmy Swaggart's ministries, so whether it is specifically defined in general as a neutral third party document, in this case, is irrelevant. WTS threw their support in for the PTL.
FMZ, my comments were not directed at you, but at seesthesky who asked the question. I know you would understand if you had all the details. You've been through the same wringer as many of us have.
O
-
Euphemism
Among the groups that filed amicus briefs for the WTS in Stratton were the ACLU, the Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Foundation, and Gun Owners of America Inc. I doubt that any of these groups agree with the teachings, objectives or methods of the WTS. However, they filed amicus briefs because the legal issue involved in the WTS' case affected them as well. That is standard practice in the Supreme Court.
With as much hypocrisy as the WTS is guilty of, I agree that focusing on the Swaggart amicus is a red herring. Not that the WTS would extend a similar courtesy to its own critics, of course.