Posts by Chaserious

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.

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

Thank you for responding, Juan.

To Datadog: As I mentioned, I only watched 4 of the videos. Personally, it didn't seem worth two hours of time to watch them all, so I can't comment on everything he said. I can't say that he came across as a liar as much as a conspiracy theorist. Although the forged judge signature seems like it would be either true or a lie, and I don't necessarily buy it - it would be so easy to prove and take down whoever did it. Of course I don't know anyone involved unlike some other posters here, but it came across that he is imputing everything bad that happens to a WT conspiracy without any proof or based on tenuous coincidences, such as the parking tickets, border patrol etc.

You say that huge corporations will go to any length to protect themselves, and I would not be surprised by what you describe happening. However, my implication was that even if the WTS is evil enough to do these things, and has the power to pull all the strings, it would not be worth the risk over a low level lawsuit that from a legal perspective they would most likely end up winning in any event. At most, a $2 Million piece of real estate was at stake here. Billion-dollar corporations face lawsuits potentially worth a few million all the time, and it is laughable to think that any business corporation, no matter how evil would put "two bullets to the back of the head" over small potatoes like this. Your life may not be worth as much as a billion-dollar corporation, but their life is not worth throwing away over a couple million either. It's not even important as a precedent situation; even if congos could withdraw from the WTS and keep their building it would never happen because most bodies of elders would not be crazy about getting DF'd for doing it. If we are talking about some nutbag individual JW doing something crazy or elders following people around, I wouldn't doubt it. Not buying the far-reaching WTS conspiracies though.

Juan: I don't think it was impossible to put a decent fight up without a lawyer; they just had terrible advising. Perhaps "Steele" is familiar with court filings, but that is only the beginning of the battle. I seriously doubt he knows anything about trial procedure (or if he does, he didn't share what he knows) based on my reading of the transcript this morning. Cobb does not seem unintelligent - he gave some speeches in court that show he understood what was going on and can express himself in a logical way. However, it was clear that he had no idea how a trial worked and seemed to not understand hearsay and getting documents admitted at all. These are not extremely difficult concepts; as I said High School students do it all the time. As someone else said, it seemed like he expected to go into court and it would be like Judge Judy where he could just explain how he was wronged and show whatever evidence he wanted. Like I said to Datadog, I can buy the surveillance, but not the more outlandish stuff.

On your response about the Canada Border Patrol, I don't doubt that he was held up at the border. In the video, he seems to imply that it was due to the WTS large-scale conspiracy theory he is advancing. That's the part I'm not buying.

This is only my own opinion, but I would cringe at the thought of active JW family members seeing these videos. Regardless of how much of the material is true, I think it makes apostates look like nutbags.

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

Is anyone really supposed to take a series of videos at face value with the word "Testmoney" in the title, and featuring a guy in sunglasses and a pimp hat? I read the previous comments and watched videos 8-10. Clearly the biggest problem the elders had was that they did not have a real lawyer, and possibly relied on this guy for advice. The clerks forged the judge's signature on a ruling? Do you have any idea how severe the consequences are for doing something like this, and how seriously any judge would take this kind of thing? If you get on the WTS shit-list you are going to get trumped-up speeding and parking tickets? WTS has the Canadian Border Patrol in their pocket? Running people off the road to intimidate them like Ralph Macchio in Karate Kid? This is a joke. Why haven't they launched rocket propelled grenades at Candace Conti's lawyer's office?

I am extremely doubtful that this man has experience even as a paralegal, or is in any way qualified to provide legal assistance of any sort. Cobb was not prepared in the least to respond to hearsay objections or get documents admitted. He thought he could question the WTS attorney after he was cross-examined. I have coached high school kids in mock trial who could have done a far better job with evidentiary issues. The Supreme Court case that Cobb cited in his closing argument on the Corporations Code issue is entirely irrelevant to this case. Not to take anything away from Cobb and the other plaintiffs; they just obviously had no one knowledgeable helping.

Juan, have you been able to confirm that the person appearing in this video was actually the same person giving legal advice to the Menlo Park elders?

I think that what the WT did was underhanded, but in California as long as a religion is hierarchical it will prove very difficult to take property away from the parent organization. In other states the result could be differnt, but it seems like it would have been difficult to get around the California Supreme Court rule from In re Episcipal Church Cases in 2009. In my mind there is no question the WTS is hierarchical. I certainly haven't followed this case as carefully as you, Juan. Do you know of a legal argument that has been advanced as to why the elder plaintiffs should have won, that you could link to? One thing I am interested in knowing is whether the WTS had declared a trust prior to the lawsuit. I imagine this is standard practice after the fiasco they had in Texas a while back, but I don't think the court ever reached that point, or at least not in the documents I read on your site. I tend to think this whole episode was valuable, not because the elders should have won, but because it raised awareness about the extent to which the WTS steamrolls internal dissent and any inclination not to do exactly as they say.

22

Computers have successfully replaced college professors

by moshe in

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/how-californias-new-online-education-pilot-will-end-college-as-we-know-it/.

-while faculty worry about the quality of online courses, the truth is that our education system, primarily designed to test rote memorization, is built to scale and be independent of teacher interaction.

a review of research by the department of education in 2009 found that "students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.".

Chaserious

given what's happening at some of the Ivy League institutions (Stanford, NYU, UCLA, and others... who are expanding their online curriculums AND their attendance to include outside students)

This kind of thing is definitely out of the comfort zone for elite schools, yet they're doing it. I think we will never see top-tier schools do a complete paradigm shift, though. These schools emphasize the college experience, not just the classroom experience. Most elite schools will not allow you to attend unless you live in the dorms for your first 1-2 years. But there is definitely change in the works. Harvard Law is even offering its first (free) online course:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202582652536&Harvard_Law_offering_first_free_online_course&slreturn=20130018191440

BTW - Stanford, NYU and UCLA, while all excellent schools (and at least in Stanford's case an academic peer of the Ivies), are not Ivy League Institutions.

17

Guns, Politics, and Liberty

by Infowarrior in

i was raised as a witness in canada all my life.

the majority of my time attending watchtower meetings i was essentially never exposed to how spiritual beliefs relate to political belifes, even in terms with jw watchtower doctrine.

i grew up understanding that some witnesses had diffrent ideas on things, but was made to feel that the watchtower established many key beliefs that are required for witnesses in good standing.

Chaserious

I have come to realize that we are facing an international agenda of evil, formentend by the bankers and their technocrat politicans

Oh please.. I had to stop reading here. Build a bunker if you are so worried.

95

Any suggestions on handling financial abuse of a senior by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?

by Balaamsass in

does anyone here have any suggestions on handling financial abuse of a senior by the watchtower bible and tract society?

mom gave a lot of money to the watchtower bible and tract society over her lifetime- (6 figures).

after she ran low on funds she made a 5 figure "conditional loan" to wtb&ts.

Chaserious

There have been some articles written on the use of "voluntary impoverishment" to get state aid, examining the legality of various techniques used to get on government assistance. In the typical case the money goes to relatives though. If you feel like doing some dense reading about the topic in general, here are a couple that might be kind of relevant:

John A. Miller, Voluntary Impoverishment to Obtain Government Benefits, 13 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 81, 92 (2003),

Estate Planning: A Race to the Poorhouse: Should Guardians Have a Duty to Impoverish Their Wards for Asset Protection Purposes Thereby Preserving Assets for Heirs? 34 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 251 (2012)

57

Watchtower softens position on Jehovah' Witnesses and blood transfusions? Canadian National Post Story.

by Balaamsass in

without fanfare, jehovahs witnesses quietly soften position on blood transfusionstom blackwell, national post staff | dec 20, 2012 9:59 pm et.

Chaserious

I am also not so convinced that these are "legally useless documents." In my opinion, one should always assume that documents drafted in legal terms have some import. I know nothing about Canadian tort law, but I think that in the United States, were a similar document used, while it would indeed be useless to show consent, it could be proof of notice.

I think that if the JW parent decided to bring a civil suit later for wrongfully transfusing the child, this document would be admissible in that matter to show that the parent was on notice that a transfusion could be given, and potentially used to argue that a burden shifting had taken place. In other words, since the parent knew (was on notice) that the hospital would transfuse if it thought the procedure was legally justified, the burden would then be on the parent after receiving such notice to run to court and get her own court order if the parent thought it was not legally justified. I would suspect that having such proof of notice would make the hospital's legal team more comfortable with giving an unconsented transfusion.

4

Letter of Understanding - LOU

by dreamgolfer in

dear friends,.

after reading the wonderful article and comments on the lou with regards to blood for minor children.. it made me think that such a document and it's principle of writing would also have merit and be valid for use of and not limited to allowing - military service, acceptances of oaths and allegiance and other legal situations that have cost many previous jw's their lives.. i throw this out to all in terms of a discussion - what do you think?.

thanks and happy new year!

Chaserious

I am guessing the WTS would not be satisfied by such a document in other contexts. After all, it is only used with minors who can be forced by the state to get a transfusion in any event. Adult JWs as I understand it are still expected to die rather than accept prohibited blood procedures. So I would imagine that adult JWs would still be expected to take the consequences for refusing miltary service, oaths, etc.

57

Watchtower softens position on Jehovah' Witnesses and blood transfusions? Canadian National Post Story.

by Balaamsass in

without fanfare, jehovahs witnesses quietly soften position on blood transfusionstom blackwell, national post staff | dec 20, 2012 9:59 pm et.

Chaserious

Parents don't "force" court orders; hospitals seek court orders.

Of course parents force court orders; they force the hospital to seek them. The hospital does not need a court order for the 99.5% of children whose parents consent to lifesaving treatment by signing an authorization form. For the 0.5% or whatever small minority of parents will not consent, the hospital is "forced" to obtain a court order to provide the treatment. One cannot approach this pedantically, looking only through the narrow lens of sheer legal force. The world does not go around because everyone needs a court order to tell them what to do. Most of the time people acquiesce when they know they have no legal ground on which to stand on without "forcing" someone to run to the court to get an injunction or restraining order. If you owned a house and rented it out, and the tenant refused to move out when his lease was over, wouldn't it be fair to say that he "forced you" to get a court order to evict him?

The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents; therefore, there is no harm to the WTBTS if JWs sign these.

Respectfully, I do not think this is the issue. The WTBTS cannot be legally "harmed" no matter the outcome. A corporation is not the one being transfused. This is a matter between the patient, the parents and the hospital. It has nothing to do with WTBTS legal rights, since they have none in these cases anyone. Watchtower doctrine has often been a matter of symbolism, and not legalism. They caused publishers in Malawi to die because of not carrying a political party card. This was a symbolic issue. I would be quite certain that in the 1980's, the HLC would have told publishers not to sign anything acknowledging blood might be given. It contains symbolism that could be equated with agreement, even if not legal consent. Just as the Malawi cards meant almost nothing practically (it was a one-party country) but might "give the idea that we compromise Christian principles", the LOU would have been viewed the same saw by a hard-line WTS regime.