One trick the JWs use to keep from being sued is for JW defenders to get on boards like this and make the argument that it is not possible, scaring off the complaint as it were. Don't fall for it, people.
jonathan dough
JoinedPosts by jonathan dough
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
They can't be held liable if an individual witness concludes on their own that the person is a drug addict, adulterer, pedophile or apostate.
That's the point behind my scenerio of suing individual elders. The WTS didn't defame but it's entirely possible that an elder with a big mouth and haughty attitude might. Then, and only then, could you, possibly, maybe, big maybe, have an opportunity at a defamation lawsuit.
And if you sue John Smith for defmation, the Society is not liable and they will not step in with legal help for the defendant.
And again, all this is wishful thinking anyway. The odds are still against you and it is an expensive way to get some satisfaction or revenge.
If you went to law school, you need to go get a refund.
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
One of their favorite legal tactics is delay, delay, delay, meanwhile the legal bills for the plaintiff continue to mount. Unless you have several $millions just lying around, you can't afford to take them on.
Nonsense. David beats Goliath all the time. If your case is strong enough and the right firm takes the case you won't have to put any money up front. There are many mangled poor people who walk away with million dollar judgments. Not to mention the attorneys' take.
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
Me: For instance, hypothetically speaking, while it might be true that Undercover is a meth-addict and pedophile, even if he admits it, you can't put up a billboard on the highway stating that.
You:How exactly did we go from publicly announcing that someone is no longer a member of your religion to that? That's a pretty large leap in logic. Obviously, if you announce publicly that a person is a drug addict, or adulterer, or pedophile, or god-forbid an apostate, that could be grounds for a defamation suit, particularly if it isn't true.
you: But JWs don't do this for that reason. They simply announce that the person is no longer a member of their religion. This in itself is not defamation. They are simply informing the other members of the cong that the person's status has changed. They can't be held liable if an individual witness concludes on their own that the person is a drug addict, adulterer, pedophile or apostate.
As you can tell from what I wrote, I wasn't connecting the hypothetical with dissfellowshipping. That should have been clear. It pertains to whether truth is a defense in all instances of defamation. I also was quite clear in stating the improbability of a successful action based upon df'ing alone and that there are many other grounds one could pursue.
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
You also want to look at the manuals, those books that the elders etc. have, the ones that tell them what to do. You can hang them with that if it says do X and they do Y, or vice versa. Or the instructions violate rights in and of themselves.
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
First, they have to spread lies.
Not necessarily. While the general rule is that truth is a defense, there are exceptions. For instance, hypothetically speaking, while it might be true that Undercover is a meth-addict and pedophile, even if he admits it, you can't put up a billboard on the highway stating that.
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
if the WTS could be held legally liable for its DFing practices someone would have done it by now.
Weak.
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
For example Barbara and Joe Anderson tried several novel tort theories against the Society, but all were dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
That is just one circuit. States have different laws. You can't go by that.
-
72
Public Defamation = DF'd ???
by Lillith26 inthis 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 .
-
-
jonathan dough
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. Were you falsly accused of molesting a child or commiting adultry, and that lie made its way through the congregation and up the corporate ladder, and you in turn go out and try to kill yourself because of the false accusation or you suffer such humiliation and depression it drives you to the brink. Did you lose work because of it? Lose your wife? (No, I'm not talking about me so don't read anything into this). Did they sit in their cars hours on end spying on you? Did they pry into personal matters and spread that information throughout the congreation that somehow caused you damages? Did they lead you to believe your "confession" was protected by the laws of privilege but didn't keep that information confidential? Is there a wrongful death or infliction of emotional distress claim arising from a minor child's death who was murdered due to the inability to obtain a blood transfusion? Could a sibling sue? Were you emotionally harmed because the elders, or anyone in the congregation for that matter, drove a wedge between you and your spouse? Did they pry into your sexual proclivities with your spouse and that information got leaked out.
I can go for hours like this. I read these stories of abuse on this board, there are some very damaged people here, and that is not normal. These people (WTS) likely intentionaly inflicted emotional distress.
What makes it easier is that these people can't keep their mouths shut. They feed on the slander. Gathering information might not be as difficult as one might think. And, they keep large paper trails.
-
70
Does anyone here believe that Jesus never existed?
by Newborn inif so...why?.
i don't know what i believe so i'm just curious.
/newborn.
-
-
jonathan dough
Could you at least provide one example?
I think Josephus mentions him. The Bible is enough for me.