Posts by Chaserious

3

Donation sent too Watch Tower Society but never goes out.

by jam in

a few questions concerning wt accounts.. 1) who have control over the wt funds?.

2) if one of the gb members for example , schedule to.

give a talk in a foreign country, who determine how much money.

Chaserious

I don't know the answer to these, and I hope to check back and see if anyone does. But I lol'd at this one:

Any outside agency have oversight of WT holdings?

Can't imagine this. They love their secrecy. Also, I imagine that even if someone other than the GB has to approve the checks, (and I would think this is the case ever since the change where the GB are no longer corporate officers) the culture is not one where anyone feels free to say 'no' to the GB. Other than the lawyers. They probably would say no if it's something that could cause a legal problem.

68

My Mother Passed

by Roberta804 in

thank you for all of your support durning the two difficult weeks my mother was on her death bed.

last night at 10:30pm she breath her last with my sister and i by her side.

this is a real end of an era for me as i have known little these past 8 years other than taking care of my parents.

Chaserious

So sorry to hear about this. It's good that her daughters were by her side. All the best as your family copes with the loss.

53

Would this work? Be honest. Brutal if necessary.

by okage in

i feel i must preface this with context so as to make the intention understandable: .

to jehovah's witnesses and their apologists, that goal is destruction of truth and the downfall of jehovah's witnesses.

but that's not our goal.

Chaserious

Are there not class actions against the RC church because of molestations etc., on the grounds of emotional harm done the victims?

Yes, but they are all for the same type of harm (sexual abuse), not various practices that people disagree with. Further, sexual abuse is obviously a tort with recognized damages remedies. Sexual abuse is not part of the theology of any established religion, unlike shunning. Even if you want to limit your hypothetical lawsuit to shunning victims, shunning is legal and sexual abuse is not. It's pretty simple.

the harm is not caused by doctrine

Of course the harm is caused by the doctrine. Strictly enforcing the policy (or coercion, as you call it) is all part of the doctrine, whether you agree with the doctrine or not. Personally I think the shunning policy is disgusting, but you even used the term "loved ones" in your response. Do you really think the government should be telling people who they have to love and be close with? I don't, although you are free to disagree.

thousands of people have already suffered harm from the WT's intentional interference in their familial love

You need more than just harm to have a case. If someone walks past you on the street and mockingly calls you ugly, you might suffer emotional harm, but you have no legal cause of action. If a man seduces a married woman and causes her to leave her family for him, the family certainly suffers harm, but there is no legal recourse against the seducer in almost every jurisdiction. And these are examples that don't even have the additional obstacle of freedom of religion to overcome.

Please , somebody tell me this isn't so!

It would be nice if it wasn't so, but not only is this the law, but here is an example of it actually happening within the past year:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114517/-Black-couple-in-MS-barred-from-marrying-in-white-church

Since you said you are interested in what Band on the Run thinks, she has posted in other threads not only only that shunning is protected conduct, but that she agrees with the right to associate with whoever you want. You can probably find such comments with a search. I know you have good intentions. Not trying to give you a hard time, gone for good. Just observing that the way to fight the WTS is not with shunning lawsuits. At least not in the foreseeable future.

53

Would this work? Be honest. Brutal if necessary.

by okage in

i feel i must preface this with context so as to make the intention understandable: .

to jehovah's witnesses and their apologists, that goal is destruction of truth and the downfall of jehovah's witnesses.

but that's not our goal.

Chaserious

"Chaserious - Why do you think we who are DFd are powerless? We, ALL of the DFd, and all those who have EVER been DAd - are the very people, the living witnesses who can prove that, the WTS does indeed incite ALL their members, including our own close family members to discriminate, without known cause, against us. WE the DF'd and DA'd are also the living witnesses and proof of the mental and psycological damage that is unavoidable under the WTs extreme, coercive, systematic, alienation . I would imagine thousands, would happily volunteer to testify to these as legal claims if given a chance. Hopefully, Band On The Run, or some other legal eagles will join in here."

I don't think we are powerless. Numerous websites have been started with large followings that expose the WTS for what they really are. But from a legal standpoint there is absolutely no grounds for suing the Watchtower because of DF/DA. Every week someone posts a thread saying there should be a class action lawsuit for all of the evil the WTS has done. Do you know why it hasn't happened? Because it would be an enormous failure. If anyone has individually been harmed by the WTS to the extent that the law recognizes a remedy, or a plausible argument can be made that the law should recognize a remedy, then by all means they should bring a lawsuit. I hope every pedophilia victim does bring a lawsuit against the WTS. But there is no such thing as a giant class action against a Church for all different kinds of emotional harm. You cannot sue churches for matters relating to core religous doctrines that you don't like.

You keep bringing up Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks took action against a government policy. The WTBTS is not the government. If the WTBTS, or the Podunkville First Church of Christ or any other church wanted to discriminate on the basis of race due to their religious beliefs, like say refusing to allow black couples to have a wedding ceremony in the church, guess what? They could do it right now, in 2013, and they could not be sued.

ETA: Think of it this way. We know that gender is a protected status in the Western world. The government could not force women to sit in the back of the bus any more than they could force minorities to do so. But it's not protected within churches. Imagine if all of the women who felt it was their life's purpose to be Catholic Priests decided to bring a class action against the Catholic Church for denying them their life's calling by not allowing women priests. Everyone knows the courts are not going to recognize such a claim. You are suggesting basically the same thing, except an even weaker claim, because at least women are part of a protected class under the law. People who leave or are kicked out of various religions are not a protected class at all; or what in the U.S. the courts call "discrete and insular" groups that need protection.

18

Landlord business

by hoser in

jw
friends

once you spend your property it is spent forever.

this is what the wts is doing by selling out of brooklyn.

would it not make a lot more financial sense to become landlords in one of the hottest rental markets in the world?.

Chaserious

They don't have the skills to be landlords. They probably figure they can do better taking the money today and investing it. Who knows if they are good investors or not, but usually people who are terrible investors think they are good investors anyway. I'm sure they would have to hire outside attorneys, real estate agents, and other professionals to develop and lease large residential apartment buildings. They also might have to file some tax documents. Probably too much outside entanglement for their liking.

Besides, apartment buildings can be seized to satisfy judicial liens - the kind that arise when you lose lawsuits. Liquid capital invested and stashed away in offshore accounts is much more safe.

68

Anonymous v. Silentlambs... things are starting to get ugly

by cedars in

jw
friends

bowen fights back.... .

http://www.silentlambs.org/trustsilentlambs.htm.

cedars.

Chaserious

I bet the WTBTS is behind this "Anonymous".

No way. You do realize this is the organization "Anonymous" and not an "anonymous" allegation, don't you? In the same post where they are critical of Silent Lambs, they also post some documents casting the WTS in a bad light, including some from the Menlo Park lawsuits, along with a bit of critical commentary.

http://par-anoia.net/releases2013.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)

41

Menlo Park Legal Advisor Tells All

by Juan Viejo2 in

someone sent me a link to the anoninsurrection youtube page.

i found eleven videos documenting an interview with the legal advisor for the former menlo park kingdom hall elders.

you can find them here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plszmu_qv0dgtco2wl5bnjdx12ny2_cmoo .. i've also published the entire set of eleven along with my comments on ex-jw.com.

Chaserious

DF: That is a sad situation about the elder's wife doing those things to him, and the alleged ID theft not being able to get heard.

There are a number of legitimate reasons for an opinion to be dated while a judge is on vacation. Is there any other evidence?

Also, if you think the opinion was forged, why not bring it up to the court or go see an attorney? If true, this would literally be one of the biggest legal scandals of the year and be covered in lots of national legal publications. They could probably find some attorney who would look into it for free for the publicity if there is actual evidence.

You got me curious so I checked out the federal case. It appears that the dismissal order was dated 1/6/12, and then a motion for reconsideration was filed and was denied by the same judge on 1/20/12. Why would the judge deny reconsideration if she never wrote the opinion in the first place? Do you think any federal judge would take lightly someone else writing an opinion for her without her knowledge and signing it for her?

53

Would this work? Be honest. Brutal if necessary.

by okage in

i feel i must preface this with context so as to make the intention understandable: .

to jehovah's witnesses and their apologists, that goal is destruction of truth and the downfall of jehovah's witnesses.

but that's not our goal.

Chaserious

the membership of jwn alone can stall their growth for a week. i imagine the could inspire the half that doesnt agree during the initial event.

Well, part of the point of my earlier post was that it wouldn't stall the growth because any faders/inactive are not counted in the publisher figures anyway. And I don't think the problem is that the other half (or whatever percent) "doesn't agree." The issue is that they have probably decided not to formally leave for practical reasons, such as employment/family.

Gone for good: I'm all for raising awareness of the damage that the WTS causes to members, former members and their families. I didn't acknowledge that we could easily round up thousands, though. I was just making what I think is a very generous assumption for arguments' sake. If I wasn't already DF'd, I would do it though. If by class action, you mean a lawsuit, that isn't happening anytime soon. You can shun anyone you want. Nice or not, it's perfectly legal.

41

Menlo Park Legal Advisor Tells All

by Juan Viejo2 in

someone sent me a link to the anoninsurrection youtube page.

i found eleven videos documenting an interview with the legal advisor for the former menlo park kingdom hall elders.

you can find them here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plszmu_qv0dgtco2wl5bnjdx12ny2_cmoo .. i've also published the entire set of eleven along with my comments on ex-jw.com.

Chaserious

I do know from the experience of the Episcopal church that had off shoots from dissident parishes over women and gays entering the priesthood that courts grant the diocese the title.

Not universally. You might be thinking of the Falls Church case that has garnered a lot of publicity (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-11/local/35455141_1_episcopal-church-church-property-congregation), or In re Episcopal Church Cases from the CA Supreme Court. However, in All Saints Parish Waccamaw v. Protestant Episcopal Church, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of the local Episcopal congregation under almost the exact same facts as the California case. In California, the national church can unilaterally declare a trust, whereas the SC common law of trusts does not permit it; thus the different outcomes in different states.

Devil Fish: Thanks for the clarification and additional info. Even if no by-laws were enacted to the original corporate charter, in a hierarchical church the governing body can unilaterally establish a trust, as noted above. That was my question in my previous post, and I strongly suspect that a trust was declared. California has a special part of the Corporations Code added in 1982 that only applies to religions. (It is section 9142(c)(2) if you are interested in checking. The CA Supreme Court case mentioned above also gives the current interpretation of that section). A trust means that the property is held in legal title by the congregation for the organization which the congregation is a member of, and the congregation cannot "secede" and keep the property.

It is for this reason that I believe the plaintiffs would have lost even if they had an attorney, and the WTS didn't need a fraudulent dismissal. Especially in the Federal Case. I can't imagine there are grounds for federal court jurisdiction anyway, regardless of the merits. Also, federal dismissals come with a written opinion. If you believe the dismissal was fraudulent, who would have written the opinion?

53

Would this work? Be honest. Brutal if necessary.

by okage in

i feel i must preface this with context so as to make the intention understandable: .

to jehovah's witnesses and their apologists, that goal is destruction of truth and the downfall of jehovah's witnesses.

but that's not our goal.

Chaserious

The OP's idea is a bit of a prisoners' dilemma problem, no? Even if it worked out, it would get their attention, but it wouldn't reduce their numbers. The 7.5 million only counts active publishers and I think the majority of doubters and non-believers are not active publishers. Among those who are active, they are probably doing it for a specific reason and would be unlikely to join in any event. Besides, our numbers are pretty small in comparison. I think there are about 26,000 total members that have joined JWN. Take out duplicate profiles and it's probably closer to 20,000. Take out those already DA/DF, and my guess is you are down to 10,000. So even if someone could convince half of the non DA/DF members here to quit at once, it would be less than the number baptized in a week.