Thanks for posting this, Kent. I had heard someone mention it but had not read it. I used to take the trouble to go to boards like that and present as moderating a tone as I could, but not being willing to lie makes it hard to really post with a clean conscience. I appreciate a lot of the posts you put up. You have Yankee ways, but the last thing I would accuse you of is not having the facts or presenting them. Your biggest fault lies in your extreme Norwegian Nationalism, and I guess when you are raised on the soup of National Pride, it is hard to overcome. (I do wish when defending it you would present pictures like Jan does. Thank you too, Jan, if you are out there) I also agree with you that until the jury has spoken the facts presented don't mean squat..... just look at O.J. Simpson.
Berry Case on Great Crowd
by Kent 17 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Kent
LOL. "Your biggest fault lies in your extreme Norwegian Nationalism". Well, I live in a beautiful country.
This ship, Victoria, goes in a chanal, and it's about 180 meters from sea-level where it stops.This is from where I live:
http://www.telemarkreiser.no/
http://www.grenland.no/en/Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org -
MadApostate
KrAzYkEnT:
Principal=WTS
Agents=Elder Bodies/Comm
Third Parties=R&F harmed by Elders' actions.
I would respond to Grunt's post, but can't figure out what he is "grunting" about. If he is congratulating KK, who can't even get his facts straight, then he deserves no reply!!!
-
Grunt
Kent, thanks a lot for the pictures. I started to say, "Hey, that looks a lot like Sitka, Alaska" but then thought you might take it as some kind of put down so I didn't. It is beautiful. I live close to a coast too, actually two coasts, but am not smart enough to send pictures. You and Jan have actually caused me to learn quite a bit about Norway, thanks. Why aren't there many Swedes on these boards? Or do they just hide it?
MadApostate,
Principal=WTS - Sounds right to me.
Agents=Elder Bodies/Comm - ditto
Third Parties=R&F harmed by Elders' actions. - Couldn't agree more.
"I would respond to Grunt's post, but can't figure out what he is "grunting" about. If he is congratulating KK, who can't even get his facts straight, then he deserves no reply!!!"
Hmmmm, then give me none. Or is it too late for that? As you did reply I have to wonder what was so confusing about my Grunts? Let me explain them.
I said thanks to Kent for putting up this post from GreatCrowd that was deleted, and for his opposition to the Cult I hate. I next called him a Yankee and tricked him into sending me some GREAT pictures of a place I am unlikly to visit all in one fell swoop. Not a bad trick that. I agreed with him that here as it evidently is in Norway, the jury is totally unprecdictable and despite having a great case presented can come in with an off the wall verdict.
Do you agree that the Witnesses are a clueless cult that destroys lives?
Do you agree that a jury can ignore facts and render a bad decision sometimes?
Do you sometimes find Norwegians a little boastful and overbearing, trying to force their world view and culture on the rest of us? (send more pics please)
If you disagree with the above then it is little wonder that you aren't sure where I am coming from. Let me make it clear, I would pay money to drive a bulldozer through Bethel and then Patterson. I despise the group known as Jehovah's Witnesses for the lies they spread and the people they hurt. I will carry the weapons of any man wanting to fire a shot at the Tower, if it gives me a better shot too. I want the Tower in rubble and then I want to dance on that rubble and fling it at rusty old printing presses and laugh while I do it.
Does that clear the fog? -
puppylove
Hey, haven't checked in here in a long time, but I, too, shake my head at myself and wonder how I ever believed this stuff.
Cheers to all my old friends!
Puppylove (and I would assume Ah Hah would say hello also)
-
hawkaw
MA,
However, this is Strictly a consideration of the "Agency" issue. In the Berry and other similar cases, there are many other issues which must be considered in reaching a final decision, not the least of which are the US Constitutional issues. It is these larger issues which MAY prevent the Berry case from succeeding.
WRT the elders, they are people who are in authority and I think I am in agreement with you on this issue about the WTS being liable in a tort case. What was Marvin talking about (I was away for a week)??
Now just on the elder issue themselves,
They, the elders, have a legal duty to report based on the New Hampshire law. Their defence would be, did they take the reasonable steps that a reasonable person would take to "not" report the abuse to the authorities. The CO/DO should also be named in this case too as they are the Elders supervisors and responsible for their actions too.The elders, if they are smart (which I doubt), will hire their own lawyers to protect them. If they don't and use the WTS lawyers - God help them and the congregation's holdings because the WTS lawyers will look out for the corporation's interest and hang them!!! Remember in Tort law, they all can be held liable but then there is the determination of who is most liable and who pays out the most etc...
Now, if the elders do get their own lawyers then they may have a chance. They could maybe argue that they were forced by a "legal team" (an officer of the court) at the WTS headquarters to respond to the Berry issue in the manner they did (ie. they were counseled to commit an offence by an officer of the court). They could also argue that no one told them about the law - But if say the government mailed a letter or notified them another reasonable way I think they are toast. Also, "ignorance of the law" is not an excuse. The elders may also be able to argue they were not not trained properly too and that could help a little. But note the word "could". In this case "trained" means dialing the telephone to a government agency like the police!!!
You also brought up a constitutional issue with this .....??? Where??
Failure to report is found in a statute that is required to protect children. Protection to life and health "trumps" section 2(a) in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada and the section in the USA's constitution that deals with religious and conscience freedom. Note the Catholic and other churches have been through this before and there is nothing to protect them on this issue. Its just like murder. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion but everything to do "harm" and not properly disclosing it.
Give me a response back on this thread MA - I'm interested in your angle. I gotta go to bed now.
hawk
-
MadApostate
Hawkaw:
It would be best for you to just read my BERRY CASE EVALUATED thread to keep from rehashing everything.
Marvin, Kent, and others have made some recent threads/posts which are making a much larger issue than really exists of the Principal-Agent relationship between the WTS and the Elder Bodies. As I have tried to explain, under the circumstances of how the Society and the Congregations work hand-in-hand, the Courts will deal with the "agency" issue rapidly, saying "yes" the Elder Bodies ARE "agents" of the WTS, thus making the WTS responsible for the Elder's mistakes and resulting harm, assuming that other Legal Issues would allow the case to be successful, which is highly doubtful. In the Berry Case, the named Defendents are the WTS and the Cong. As the attorneys know, the WTS owns 95% of the Cong's assets anyway. To prove that there is no issue regarding the Elders being considered the WTS's "agents", the BERRY lawuit does not even bother to name the Elders individually. Berry's attorney would have done so, just as a fallback measure, if there had been even a .00001% chance that the Court would NOT have considered the Elders agents.
Kent, MS, and others are trying to CREATE discord between the WTS and elders by saying the WTS will leave the elders hanging. Kent flat out doesn't know shit. Just his usual throwing 10 pounds of shit on the wall, and hoping that 2 ounces might stick. Marvin is one of these people that knows just enough about the law to sound credible to those who know nothing- another term is he knows just enough to be dangerous- but to anyone with legal knowledge, he discredits himself quickly.
You are correct that there is a reporting law in NH. However, as I have posted in the BERRY CASE EVALUATED thread, there is a 1995 NHSC case which says there is NO CIVIL ACTION for failure to report.
The other legal theories used in BERRY were all dismissed in the REES case. Thus, I don't understand how this BERRY lawsuit has any possiblity of succeeding.As I have acknowledged many times over, I do NOT have access to a current legal database. I'm going strictly on what I can get off the NET. MAYBE there has been a change in the NH law, or a new NHSC decision???
I doubt it. Maximus, Seeker and maybe some others have said that the BERRY attorney would not have taken this case if he couldn't win.
I DISAGREE. His online resume discloses one "supposed" victory in a trial court which any first year constitutional law student would know would be reversed on appeal. I think that this case is a "let's take it out for a spin, and see if we can get a 'hick' trial court to rule in our favor, even if we are overturned at the appellate level."I'll stop here until you read that thread.
-
hawkaw
Thanks for this MA I will look into it.
Sorry, I didn't look at your other thread. Its so wild at work and plus I have missed a lot of the action around here because I was away for a week.
Also I am working on another false claim I found in the blood pamphlet but it takes me a while to type it all in for all of you to see. Plus I have other comitments. I will look over the other thread and see what it is all about.
Did Commie Chris provide any comments?
hawk