http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
Likewise in this situation. It isn't the WT's interpretation of JCs that should have the most bearing - it is the appellant's interpretation of the JC hearings that should carry the most weight.
OC, who is the appellant in the related SCC case?
OC, it is not wt interpretation that JC is Religious practice, up until now in Canana that is how the Court viewed it. I can't see how the Court will secularize JC church process, but anything is possible.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
Whichever way it goes in this case, the Court cannot intervene without trespassing on religious freedom. Hall's attorney justified this, quantifying the intrusion in his argument as " just a little".
Could there be consequences from proceeding through a yellow light as if it was green to go? To get hit by another car having a green light.
As a remedy, what I have seen higher Courts do, is to find errors of law in the lower Court's adjudication and send it back down.
Reading Mr Hall's factum, he claims that the elders weren't doing their spiritual job and therefore he should not have be expelled from the group. He also claims that he experienced financial loss and emotional consequences resulting from his expulsion, as a remedy he wants a justiciable, secular standard of justice imposed on the church that the church should adhere to, and that church members should be able to, after exhausting all church administrative remedies, bring their grievances to secular Courts for secular justice.
god doesn’t take action against a person who has long history of faithfulness when he fails for the first time.
for example, satan is freely permitted to move in heaven and on earth even after many many sins he keeps on practicing.
israel as a nation was not rejected at the first instance of their disobedience.
The Bible mentions that kings also offered sacrifices to God. In this particular case, Sauls's sin was not based on him not being a priest. It was because he did not follow orders. Samuel told him to wait. Would the ritual of offering up the sacrifices to God please God? Is that what the king of Israel figured?!!!! Would not have God pleased if Saul only waited for Samuel... Laters on in the matter of Agag, Samuel rebuked Saul telling him: .. Does Jehovah take delight in sacrifices than in obedience in the voice of Jehovah?? To obey is better than a sacrifice..
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
What exactly was the ruling of the lower Court?
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
You have been served!
You are hereby summoned to appear at the Judicial Committee on May 22 2222 at KH of JW.........
If you fail to appear a decision may be made against you exparte...
You are being charged with the sin of XXXX
If you need pastoral help, don't come to us, go to Babylon the Great across the street or find yourself a good lawyer.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
if they actually provided proper notice and if there are in fact rules were those rules followed.
The chief justice found no problems with the notice. I believed she said it was sufficient notice. I am sure wt will be able comply with the ruling. The issue is that the adjudication of sin also involves a termination of membership although a sinner is not being summoned to appear to a legal hearing but only invited to a pastoral meeting. The Court intervention in this case into the grounds of religion changes church practice to secular due process.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
And soon we will see how Canada sees it probably soon.
The light is yellow up until now but it can change.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
he lied too.
Lawyers and liars sound the same.
i have had greatly varied experiences with hlc members over the years.
i was never one myself, but i knew several of them personally.
most struck me as being generally decent human beings.
You will not believe this OC but as I turned to read your post on this thread, I was speaking with a man (not JW) that had a problem with his bowel when he was born but this man showed me a horrific scar from the surgery he received as a baby. I mean horrific. Broke my heart. Besides such a scar- indescribable, he also suffers from incontinence.
After reading your post, I understand....
because he was shunned by his customers?.
Than you for the link, Terry.
