Posts by Chaserious

68

If Your JW Parent Died Would YOU Go To The Kingdom Hall For The Talk?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i would like your thoughts, please..

Chaserious

I haven't decided yet, and have put it off until I'm forced to choose, I suppose. My parents take their shunning very seriously; I am not welcome to see or speak to them at all. The only time I expect to ever see them both together again is if my (non-JW) grandfather gets sick or if he passes. After that, I fully expect the next opportunity to see either of them is when the first of them passes away.

Right now I think I would go, but it will be hard to stomach for sure seeing all these institutional shunners and being treated like a pariah at the funeral of a parent. I'm surprised to see that some were treated reasonably respectfully at a parent's funeral. I know my wife would go to her parents' funerals, and I would go with her for support. Their situation is a little different; she speaks to her mother on the phone a few times a year.

6

Thanks Mom and Dad - oh, and thanks Mother

by berrygerry in

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc2099/2013bcsc2099.html?searchurlhash=aaaaaqahamvob3zhaaaaaaab.

Chaserious

I wonder how much of the recent money grabs and suspected dwindling of donations relates to the disappearance of JWs like these. I would guess this is a bigger factor than the effect of litigation. Back in the 50's and 60's it seemed rather common for them to attract new members through door-to-door visits with middle class housewives, who probably were bored and welcomed visitors, had no internet to research the visitors, and liked the ready-made social network and even unconventional doctrines about paradise and pandas.

Then, in turn some of them would convince their husbands to join as well and of course raise their kids as JWs. I can think of two couples from where I grew up with no children who fit that mold. Both of the men had college degrees before they joined the WTS and the rumors were that both couples were relatively well-off and were leaving all their money to "the society." These people would be well into their 80's now if still alive.

I suspect that people like this (and like those involved in the court case, who may have even left family out of their estate planning) have accounted for a huge chunk of donations in years past. How many average Joe JWs dropping $20-$30 per month in the box does it take to equal one upper-middle class couple who leaves their entire estate to the WTS?

Most of these people have died off - those who convert more recently tend to be the less educated who haven't done the research about what this group is about, and the born-ins are rarely able to save up a nest egg after listening to the warnings against higher education and not working overtime in order to go door-knocking on the weekends.

6

Thanks Mom and Dad - oh, and thanks Mother

by berrygerry in

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc2099/2013bcsc2099.html?searchurlhash=aaaaaqahamvob3zhaaaaaaab.

Chaserious

Its a shame they gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Watchtower, but they clearly intended for the WT to keep the money if they died without asking having asked for it back. Claiming that it doesnt count because of lack of compliance with the wills act was just a hope to find a legal loophole to invalidate the couple's true, however misguided intent. I have no problem with the result.

32

What's with this "no windows in kingdom halls" thing?

by Trapped in JW land in

jw
friends

i hear many people on this forum say that kh's don't have windows.

but i have never been to one that didn't have windows.

is this only in a certain area or something?.

Chaserious

In the Kingdom Hall I grew up going to, it originally had windows, and then some time in the 90's they did a "remodel" and removed the windows and covered them with stucco like the rest of the building. The reason they gave is that on a couple of occasions, local children had thown rocks through the windows. After that on the inside they just kept the curtains closed where the windows used to be. It made it feel rather depressing inside.

11

Just 2 questions regarding the U.S. law around sex abuse

by joe134cd in

i just have 2 questions regarding the u.s law around sex abuse.. (1) in this country it is quite common for the events of a sex abuse trial, to have suppression orders placed on it.

one i can think of was when the offender was given name suppression because to identify the abuser would also mean identifying the victim, so hence both were given name suppression.

now with regard to the out of court settlements and gag orders by the watchtower, and yes i do realise that the wt would have the most to benefit by doing this.

Chaserious

Joe, what Zalkin is doing is important, because it exposes this organization's failure to protect its children. But he's not doing it just for the love of justice. His firm hopes to reap tens of millions of dollars in attorney's fees from these lawsuits. There's nothing wrong with that, and he'll deserve what he gets, but when he comes out with guns blazing, as you say, it's part of his litigation strategy; and not necessarily righteous indignation.

He wants the WTS to fear him and his firm, and to know when they see a new lawsuit with his name on it, it should be taken seriously. It therefore is immediately perceived as having a higher dollar value than a similar suit by another attorney, and also is going to have bad press that comes with it. The reality is that even he does not want to take all of these cases to trial, whatever he might say to denounce the WTS for settling cases. His preference would probably be to take a case or two to trial if necessary, with a plaintiff who is prepared for that kind of fight. Then if he can demonstrate that he is the best at winning this particular type of case, it will drive up the value of out of court settlements in the rest.

I doubt his firm has the resources to take 15+ of these cases to trial in the period of a couple of years, and even if they did, they are not paid by the hour. If he can get close to the same amount in a settlement as he expects to win at trial, I'm sure his concern for airing this out to the public would disappear quickly when he can save the weeks it may take to try a case, not to mention hundreds of hours of pretrial preparation and travel around the country taking depositions. And that doesn't even take into account the effect on the victim.

One other thing - he is not necessarily to "blame" for any settlements his clients may enter into. Attorneys must communicate every settlement offer to their clients, and are required to settle if the client wants to, even if the attorney does not want to.

Blondie - How absolutely awful. You are absolutely right about the victims.

8

1973 Release from Liability form

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

today i added a new article to my blog.

it will appeal to readers interested in historical documentation of watchtower blood doctrine.

it contains an image of a very rare document from the early 1970s stipulating what jehovah's witnesses do not allow.

Chaserious

It seems like they moved away from claiming that the risk of harm was a reason they refuse blood over the years. I remember growing up during the early days of AIDS and being told that Jehovah protected us from AIDS by not taking blood transfusions. I remember some kid from school needing heart surgery and a blood transfusion and I thought he was going to get AIDS. I wonder what the ratio was of preventable deaths vs. the risk of HIV, even in those days. For every person who might have statistically been infected, I suspect many lives were lost. I believe many JWs still think blood products are risky from a health standpoint.

18

What laws are on your side (in the U.S.) so you can leave quietly

by oppostate in

jw
friends

in another topic "just quit quietly - the law is on your side" there was a lot of discussion about how to leave quietly without getting tagged publicly as "no longer a jw".

here are some legal cases that could be used to show support for leaving quietly.. you have to first send a letter saying you're leaving that specific congregation, and that you don't want them to keep records of you.. if the boe says anything against you here are some court cases that make precedent for bringing a suit against them:.

baugh v. thomas (1970).

Chaserious

I hate to always be a buzzkill, but all of these cases are significantly factually different, relying on factors that would almost never occur in the JW org. The key with Guinn is that they publicly annonuced her "sins" from the pulpit and sent letters around to other congregations. They also sent their members to hound her to get her to "repent." If you want to have a balanced view of the state of the law, make sure you read Paul v. Watchtower also.

That said, here are some situations where I believe the law could *possibly* be "on your side" in the U.S.

You are expelled without them following proper procedure. E.g., without a committe of 3 elders or for a stated reason that is not a disfellowshipping offense.
Comments about the specific nature of your alleged offenses are announced from the platform, or other untrue specific information about you.
Elders or other JW/WTS persons continue to attempt to contact you after you make clear you have no interest in being part of their organization.
You are removed from an offical legal status without your consent, e.g. as a trustee or officer of the land ownership entity for your local congregation.

Other that that, write a letter to yourself if you wish. I suppose it's not going to cost you anything. I would not suggest that anyone line a lawyer's pockets trying to sue over run-of-the-mill disfellowshipping and shunning. But if you want to, it's your money. The legal can of worms that would be opened if courts ruled that people can't shun would be unbelievable. It's morally reprehensible that they emotionally blackmail members with the threat of shunning. Let's be realistic, it's awful if your family shuns you. Mine does. But even if you win in court, they will just view it as persecution. If your family is willing to listen to the WTS and shun you now, do you think they'll decide to associate with you even if you win a judgment in court? If you're out, you've already won to a large extent. Collect your chips and take them with you.

11

Just 2 questions regarding the U.S. law around sex abuse

by joe134cd in

i just have 2 questions regarding the u.s law around sex abuse.. (1) in this country it is quite common for the events of a sex abuse trial, to have suppression orders placed on it.

one i can think of was when the offender was given name suppression because to identify the abuser would also mean identifying the victim, so hence both were given name suppression.

now with regard to the out of court settlements and gag orders by the watchtower, and yes i do realise that the wt would have the most to benefit by doing this.

Chaserious

A couple of things: first, there are not typically suppression orders on the entire trial. Rather, most states have a rule preventing the parties from publicly filing documents with the alleged victim's full name. If the case goes to trial there is a strong presumption in favor of open and public trials, both civil and criminal. It is very rare to have a closed-door trial, even in sex abuse cases.

It is very traumatic for a victim to go through a trial of this type, and no one should ever fault one for settling. It takes a lot of courage to reveal such awful details about a horrific event that happened to you in front of an entire courtroom that may include the abuser. Even if the defense attorneys go relatively easy on the victim (which is the more common defense approach in these cases) it has to be awful.

At the same time, I wouldn't assume that every defendant who settles is culpable. Sometimes insurance is involved and its a dollars and cents game where the defendant is pretty much forced to settle. Or there could be other valid reasons. With the WTS, its not really a whodunit. Everyone knows what they did; its just a matter of whether knowingly harboring sex abusers makes them liable.

77

Just quit quietly - the law is on your side!

by Ajax in

jw
friends

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.

Chaserious

A tort is a civil wrong, and to have a case in a court of law, your case has to fit in the parameters of a recognized tort. Negligence, battery, libel, slander, false imprisonment fraud are all torts, for example.

If you live in a US state that has something called a human rights commission or something similar, mostly what they do is investigate employment and/or housing discrimination cases and sometimes decide damages to keep a backlog out of the courts. They arent catchall "human rights" tribunals.

77

Just quit quietly - the law is on your side!

by Ajax in

jw
friends

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.

Chaserious

Ajax, you can get out anytime you want. The law recognizes that. Just dont expect to get damages if they announce you are out. I am a little confused by your presumption of a human rights tribunal. I am not aware of anywhere that has a human rights tribunal where any person can just file a claim for money damages based on a novel theory of a "human rights" violation. Perhaps you can be more specific about where you are aware of something like this existing? Personaly, I think the best thing to do is just be happy that you are out.