jonathan dough

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 1,386 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by jonathan dough

• 
  20

  607 and 1914 etc ----help please

  by AdaMakawee in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  could someone please point me in the direction of some threads disproving the chronology for the 1914 date?

  my brother needs this for a discussion he's having with a jw.. thanks,.

  ada.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  Just to be clear, not sure what other nations' courts would rule on these issues. Stronger protection for religion in the USA. Doesn't automatically follow that 'common law' would require other nations to follow suit, as one poster mentioned.

  http://www.144000.110mb.com/
• 
  11

  Can anyone help?

  by judi8751 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  what is a good bible version to start my new spiritual journey with ?

  i only have the nwt , makes me feel upset just looking at it..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  Throw away the NWT

  New American Bible

  KJV

  English Standard Version

  American Standard Version

  Green's Literal

  Strong and Vines Concordance.

  Pick up two or three. Go to thrift store.
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  No worries. Note that the Anderson v. WTS case doesn't cover any and all issues related to disfellowshiping. But the opinion does include what appears to be a fairly thorough analysis of establishment clause case law as it relates to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

  I just read it. Not sure all jurisdictions follow this, but it sounds like most. She never had a case from the beginning and the decision confirms what I said earlier, that df'ing is no basis for a claim, with narrow exceptions. Neither is shunning, but if you read it carefully the decision was limited, and was decided on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

  Good news is, there are plenty of grounds for litigation out there. All of her claims were related directly to her df, and actually stemmed from it. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not protect crimes; or a wide spectrum of torts, especially if they don't arise out of, or stem from, the decision to df or shun.

  Bottom line: The WTS is not as immune from being successfully sued as they want you to believe, and in my opinion, have a lot of exposure.

  http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-3.html#13B
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  jonathan dough= john doe?

  No.
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  It's not technically a "circuit." It was the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which is part of the Tennessee state court system--separate from the U.S. Federal court system.

  I thought you were referring to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and you mistakenly referred to it as the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which happens often with laymen. Yes, the state of Tenessee has its own court of appeals. I would have to do some research before I could conclude that this decision is in harmony with other cases. HOWEVER you are overlooking one very important point when you said the following:

  But you need to be realistic and learn from the experiences of others who came before you. And that experience indicates that it is difficult if not impossible to succeed in a suit against the WTS related to disfellowshiping.

  And that point is that I never made this claim and in fact said the opposite, so I don't know who you are directing this to. This is what I posted above:

  "Disfellowshipping in and of itself wouldn't most likely be actionable, they can boot out anyone they want for the most part, but the underlying facts that led up to it, for instance, that is what you want to focus on."

  But that's all right, I don't always read other people's comments as closely as I should either. And I knew better than to have assumed you actually meant the Tennessee State Court of Appeals. I must add that until I read the case itself I doubt that it covers any and all issues related to the disfellowshipping.

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-4.html#19d
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  You go, Jonathan Dough!

  Of course, I'm only looking at USA laws. What's this about conflict of interests up there?
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  I merely pointed out that publicly announcing that someone is no longer a member of your religion is not defamation. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise.

  You haven't read a single word I wrote because I never claimed that it was. Not once.
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  If you went to law school and you're so sure about it there hotshot, why don't you find someone to represent and go sue the Society...

  Well, for one thing, lawyers are prohibited from going out and finding someone in order to sue anyone. It's unethical.
• 
  72

  Public Defamation = DF'd ???

  by Lillith26 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.

  i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jonathan dough

  See points 1 and 2.

  Say what?