freedon of religion guarantees any individual the legal right to abandon any religion at any time for any reason.. if you are a citizen of a country which champions human rights, then your government doesn t care what religion you join, but they will uphold your freedom to join it, without interference, coercion or persecution.
your countries human rights legislation will conversely uphold your rights when it comes time to abandon any religion you so choose.
those (elders) who incite others interfere, coerce or persecute those who have left will be in transgression of the human rights statutes.. a person is only obligated to ecclesiastic law if he exposes himself to it or transgressed it while still a member of a religious community.. when your time comes to abandon the jw-wt cult, do it while still in good standing, be proactive - be decisive -put it in writing!..and do it before the hounders set sights on you.. write a card or letter with as much or as little explanation as you one day might wish to share with pharisees and lawyers.. take this card to a notary public to have your signature witnessed and have the writing overstamped in several places with the date.
Please provide your feedback to this preemptive approach
My feedback is that mailing a letter to yourself and stuffing it in a drawer is going to have no legal effect whatsoever. Try cancelling your gym membership that way, and see what happens when you complain about continuing to be charged membership fees.
Filing lawsuits over being DF'ed/DA'd under their current standard practices for those scenarios is a waste of time, money and court resources.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kansas-church-that-left-presbyterian-church-usa-takes-property-fight-to-court-130936/the short version: a presbyterian congregation voted to leave the presbyterian church (usa) and join a more conservative presbyterian organization.
the lawsuit is over who owns the building.
obviously, this is of interest to the xjw community given the recent land grab by the watchtower society.
There was a similar dispute in the DC suburbs over a historic church property worth millions:
The national church won, despite the congregation appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (although the Supreme Court didn't take the case).
Most of these schisms in the U.S. recently arise from disagreements between local and national over attitude toward gays and lesbians and/or same-sex marriage. There have been other similar cases and the result has varied by state. The South Carolina Supreme court allowed a local congregation to keep the property. There are other factors involved - what type of organization the church is, and how the property is held.
Nice job!
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
see last item:.
"media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from abc news new york".
For anyone who knows how to read this, could this have anything to do with society (appellant) attorneys having to jaunt about the country putting out fires (eg the Zalkin cases)?
OA means "Oral Argument" and in this context probably means other appeals arguments, of which I don't think there are any other WTS cases scheduled for right now. Their lead attorney on appeal is with a private law firm specializing in appellate advocacy, so it probably just relates to other cases not connected to the WTS.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
see last item:.
"media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from abc news new york".
blames the elders and the WTS policies for the reason of why it is not reported to the authorities.
As far as I am aware, none of these lawsuits are about the elders/WTS not reporting the plaintiff's abuse to the authorities. They are about the congregations/WTS having knowledge that these men were molesters from previous incidents and continuing to allow them to occupy positions of responsibility in the congregation. And this in an organization that routinely expels people, thus giving the impression to gullible parents that it would never allow such a person to occupy a position of trust.
Sir82: this is for the Conti case.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
see last item:.
"media request to record/broadcast oral argument; from abc news new york".
Well, that was probably not a docket entry the WTS team was happy to see. The media triggered the intense scrutiny against the RCC probably more than the financial impact of the lawsuits. The Boston Globe reporting really set the whole thing off.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/135m-awarded-to-bible-teacher-gonzalo-campos-alleged-abuse-victim-jose-lopez-281031832.html.
(published thursday, oct 30, 2014).
thursday, oct 30, 2014 updated at 11:58 pm pdt.
Isn't there a criminal element in action here. Obstruction of justice maybe, that seems to be intended to protect the monetary interest of an organization at the expense of the safety of children in the present and even the future.
Obstruction of justice in California is rather narrow; obstruction is much easier to prosecute under federal law when it occurs in a federal court. In a civil case, it would probably need to rise to the level of subborning perjury, bribing a judiical officer, or something of that magnitude. Also, prosecutors would have to identify who specifically committed a crime and charge them, and whoever is charged would be entitled to a jury trial. In reality, a defendant is never going to be criminally charged in a civil case for discovery violations (probably not even in federal court), especially when they believe they have a colorable basis for whatever their position is.
The plaintiff was awarded everything he sought and more (more in the sense that he didn't have bear the time and expense of a full trial), so that's the end of the story from the court's vantage point. As far as protecting children, that may be an observer's view of things or a take on the effect of the big picture effect of multiple lawsuits, but that's not part of the relief in a case like this. The relief is money, pure and simple.
Contempt is another question; in practice it is hard to hold corporate insiders individually liable for corporate contempt, such as by placing them in custody until the contempt is purged. I am fairly certain that most U.S. courts would agree that would not be appropriate in the case of a civil corporate defendant; who can just be made to lose the case instead.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/135m-awarded-to-bible-teacher-gonzalo-campos-alleged-abuse-victim-jose-lopez-281031832.html.
(published thursday, oct 30, 2014).
thursday, oct 30, 2014 updated at 11:58 pm pdt.
What I don't understand is why they weren't forced to hand them over WHEN ORDERED. If the court in San Diego has enough jurisdiction to order a 501(c)(3) in New York to pay 13 million in damages then how the hell does it not have the jurisdiction to send in officers to arrest those in violation or, at the very least, force compliance?
Doesn't really have anything to do with religion. In a civil lawsuit, the ultimate purpose of the lawsuit is to recover monetary damages, so the "ultimate" sanction is the award of those damages. Discovery sanctions aren't allowed to be punitive; they can only be calculated to accomplish the objects of discovery. So, the terminating sanctions that were awarded are the most drastic allowed under the law; not to mention that is what the plaintiff moved for.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/135m-awarded-to-bible-teacher-gonzalo-campos-alleged-abuse-victim-jose-lopez-281031832.html.
(published thursday, oct 30, 2014).
thursday, oct 30, 2014 updated at 11:58 pm pdt.
I had a little time to finally do some more reading on this case this morning and had an interesting observation. Gerrit Losch's personal lawyer in this matter is a man named Donald Ridley (you can see here on p.4 that it refers to "Mr. Losch's personal cousel Donald Ridley," or here at Exhibit 35, "Mr. Losch's lead counsel, Donald T. Ridley").
This attorney is in private practice in NYC, and my understanding is that he was an one time an in-house WTS lawyer. What was interesting to me is that on his firm's website, one of the several practice areas that they advertise is Gay and Lesbian family law. From their website, it says the founder of the firm:
"was a pioneer in the New York Marriage Equality Movement as a longtime proponent of equal rights. He and the other attorneys of The Mandel Law Firm proudly marched across the Brooklyn Bridge in support of this cause." (I'm guessing Mr. Ridley didn't march across the Brooklyn Bridge for gay rights?)
What occurred to me is how many rank-and-file JWs were pressured over the years to quit or turn down jobs where the employers were involved in "unscriptural" practices. I recall people who were told they shouldn't work at a job where they have to handle tobacco products, do construction work on churches, etc. Yet the JW elite can work for a gay-rights lawyer (it is not clear from the website whether Ridley is a partner or an associate/employee). I wonder how Mr. Ridley's firm's gay and lesbian clients would feel if they knew that a lawyer at the law firm they patronize represents members of the governing body that teaches its millions of devout followers to shun their gay and lesbian children and other family members, and preaches that homosexuals are involved in a fashion conspiracy to induce men to wear tight pants.
the title says it all, do you think that the gb will ever bring up these cases in their literature or in a talk?
i'm not talking about them just mentioning "persecution" i'm talking about actually bringing up child abuse cases and trying to justify it.. or will it just remain the elephant in the room until years have passed?.
.
Doubt it. I would think in excess of 90% of active JWS who are not awake to TTATT have no idea about these cases. There is no mainstream national coverage of them, and even locally they amount to a 2 minute bit on the evening news or a story buried on the local newspaper's homepage or a day or two. Combine that with the fact that your average JW is probably less up on the news than your average person.
I can't see them addressing something that is not an issue for most of their followers. Plus, look at their record in admitting when they are wrong or responding to legitimate criticism.
