Hi again, SixofNine!
Too often answering questions about JW life ends in "what does the Society say about it." There is a Talmud, a Watchtower one. There is also an oral law, in fact the WTS prefers its oral laws over its written Talmud.
I don’t understand your point about each member needing to deal with issues on a personal basis. I agree with the statement, I just don’t see how it relates to what we have said between us. Can you explain. I would like to understand what you mean.
MadApostate:
You DID NOT ask me what legal civil wrong the WTS or its elders were guilty of IN THIS CASE. You asked me if I could enlighten "as to what "legally recognized" civil wrong the WTS could successfully be sued for?" I answered THAT question!
In the Berry case whether the WTS can or will be successfully sued is, drumroll…. NOT YET DECIDED!
The potential is there for a successful suit based upon inappropriate action performed by the WTS via its agents. Whether this will succeed I cannot say, and from what I see none of us can. None of us are privy to all the relevant and useable facts!
As for it being a "given" that elders are agents of the WTS anytime they perform a duty required of a JW elder, it is true in those cases they are acting as WTS agents. But that is the whole question—were THOSE elders, under THOSE circumstances performing a duty REQUIRED of JW elders, or were they acting on their own as THEY thought they should act despite known WTS policy? You and I probably have our answer to that question, but how the court of NH will decide it is another story.
In an employment setting supervisors are generally regarded as agents of the employer. What if a supervisor insisted on sex for promotion from a subordinate? This is called sexual harassment! Is the supervisor acting as a company agent then? If a company has formed and made known its strict policy against sexual harassment, and they take immediate remedial action if and when they hear of each incident of sexual harassment, then courts usually would agree the supervisor was acting on his or her own in that case and not as an agent for the company. So supervisors are not always acting as agents for the company just because they are exercising power in their position.
I do not have the time to locate a case where successful suits were filed against the WTS for character assassination. I know these cases exist because a long time Bethel lawyer has told me of the cases over the years. It is not new. That mistakes were made is obvious, the WTS has settled in some cases! Other cases they fought and won. Just who made mistakes has differed over the years. Why do you think over the years the WTS has put so much emphasis on EXACTLY what wording elders should use in making judicial announcements, particularly in the last 20 years? Answer: they needed to make policy well known to the point of documenting it with each congregation for the very purpose of distancing the WTS from elders who say too much during the announcements. Just within the last year or two elders received a detailed letter giving EXACT wording for several types of announcements where character assassination had been a problem. Do you think the WTS makes this crap up just for the heck of it? The reason is they have been sued, and it cost them!
As for truth being an absolute defense in a case of accused slander, I have news for you: the burden of proof falls on the one doing the talking, not the one being talked about. Truth is only a defense if the one talking can prove what they are saying! In cases where a single witness is the ONLY evidence outcomes becomes questionable because they are not always believed. If they are not believe, even if what they say is true, then they have no defense. So truth is not always a defense in a court of law. Truth is only a defense if you can prove it. If you can’t prove it, even though it might be true, the one talked about need not say a word in order to prevail.