Conti's lawyer may have agreed to the extensions also. We don't know all of the facts.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
46
Candace Conti v. Watchtower | March 11, 2013 | Watchtower Society Appeal Dismissed For Failure To File Opening Brief
by jwleaks inedit correction:.
the court web site lisiting reflects the following below, but we have been informed that the watchtower society has been given yet another extension until march 26, 2013.. the below post will be left as is, for those who may have wondered what happened.. .
congratulations candace conti.
-
-
-
32
Jehovahs Witnesses An Organization?
by Marvin Shilmer injehovahs witnesses an organization?.
today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.
it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.
-
-
Chaserious
TD: Those are good points. Anytime an action is alleged to be a tort that might be actionable in some circumstances but not others, any relevant information will be considered, which is what I was saying earlier about baptism being one thing that could be relevant.
You are using the example of harrassment/ infliction of emotional distress. Being a member of the congregation might be a reasonable defense for a minister to show up at your door asking questions. But it's not the only defense. If you had shown up at the Baptist services the past two Sundays and spoken to the minister there, that might be a justification for the Baptist minister to call on you, even though not a member. On the other hand, even if you are a member and you tell the minister in no uncertain terms that you don't want him to do so, it could be a crime or a tort if he continues to call on you, member or not. So I was just pointing out that baptism, while relevant, is not a special talisman that gives elders additional secular legal rights.
-
46
Candace Conti v. Watchtower | March 11, 2013 | Watchtower Society Appeal Dismissed For Failure To File Opening Brief
by jwleaks inedit correction:.
the court web site lisiting reflects the following below, but we have been informed that the watchtower society has been given yet another extension until march 26, 2013.. the below post will be left as is, for those who may have wondered what happened.. .
congratulations candace conti.
-
-
Chaserious
The ability to cure within 15 days is in the CA court rules, so it's not some deadline a Satanic judge made up. But of course they would believe any spin "mother" puts on it. They are not going to miss the deadline, though.
ETA: I did not know about CCP473 motions. So maybe they will miss. But I'm sure they will go through with the appeal one way or another.
-
32
Jehovahs Witnesses An Organization?
by Marvin Shilmer injehovahs witnesses an organization?.
today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.
it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.
-
-
Chaserious
" a grave sin sufficient that Christians should treat them as though dead."
Yes, but there is no requirement that a person be a member of a religion for that religion to have the legal right to make such statements. The Westboro Baptist Church makes such statements about specific non-members all the time. (e.g. U.S. soliders). For confirmation that this is legal in the U.S., read the Snyder v. Phelps case from the Supreme Court. Membership has nothing to do with it, and by proxy, baptism has no legal significance.
-
32
Jehovahs Witnesses An Organization?
by Marvin Shilmer injehovahs witnesses an organization?.
today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.
it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.
-
-
Chaserious
" Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subjected to public censure by Watchtower appointed men acting under Watchtower policy, and Watchtower’s right to continue this policy has been upheld over and over again when taken before US courts.
The threshold at which Watchtower gains this right is at the moment of membership in its religious organization. "
Yes, but nowhere in the cases that you refer to in the first paragraph above does it make the connection to a threshold that you make in the second paragraph in the above quote. The leading case, the one that is always referred to in lower courts when discussing the legality of shunning, is Paul v. Watchtower. I have read the case, and I am curious to know where you think it (or the other cases referred to) makes the connection to baptism being a threshold. As far as I can tell, the statement that "The threshold at which Watchtower gains this right is at the moment of membership in its religious organization" is entirely your own.
In fact, the Paul case said that:
" Providing the Church with a defense to tort is particularly appropriate here because Paul is a former Church member. Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church."
Note that it said "particularly appropriate" because she was a member, which indicates that being a member is not what the legality of shunning turns upon. That is after the longer discussion that showed the Watchtower would be able to shun no matter what. As the court said, they don't really look at the membership structure or requirements within a church.
Paul case available here
-
32
Jehovahs Witnesses An Organization?
by Marvin Shilmer injehovahs witnesses an organization?.
today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.
it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.
-
-
Chaserious
"But any person in the world does not have a legal right to publicly suggest you’ve committed a grave sin based on their own whims."
"____ is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"
There is no legally cognizable tort in that statement, whether it is made about someone baptized or not. If they got their jollies by announcing that Barack Obama or Derek Jeter is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they could do so also. No special secular legal right is conferred upon the organization by virtue of baptism.
I enjoy your material much of the time, but it's somewhat disheartening to see that someone who writes a blog that is held out as being factually based feels compelled to defend assertions about the law by repeating them over and over again, but does not feel compelled to back them up with actual citations to law.
-
32
Jehovahs Witnesses An Organization?
by Marvin Shilmer injehovahs witnesses an organization?.
today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.
it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.
-
-
Chaserious
Under US law the moment a person joins a religious organization they are subject to governing aspects of that organization, meaning that organization has a legal right to act toward the subject according to its dictates that are not illegal.
Under Watchtower's scheme the threshold “moment” is baptism.
This public marking is perfectly lawful under current US law, and a person subjects themselves to it legally at the point of baptism.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to continue to disagree with this because it is not accurate. I'm not trying to be argumentative and it's certainly nothing personal; rather I just don't want readers to have incorrect information.
This part of the above comment is completely circular: " a legal right to act toward the subject according to its dictates that are not illegal."
Any person in the world has a legal right to do things that aren't illegal. That's just the differece between legal and illegal. Baptism in and of itself does not give the Watchtower organization or any congregation any legal rights that it would not otherwise have toward a person. As I said, it might be one factor in determining whether you might welcome some of the normal things that church leaders do vis-a-vis their church members.
I previously asked for the specific U.S. law that you were referring to, and you cited a 12 page Watchtower legal letter that cited some cases. I did read the letter and I have previously read almost all of the cases cited in that letter, and none of them supports the assertion that you are making.
Edited to add: I will note that there is an 1871 Supreme Court case (Watson v. Jones) that does have language to the effect that you agree to follow the rules when you join an organization. However, this is misleading to have been quoted in a letter about baptism. That case was not about an individual member, it was about an individual congregation that wanted to leave the national church organization and keep their church building. The case was really not about an individual being subject to church rules, but a congregation being subject to church rules. This is a different matter, and there are legal rights that are affected when a congregation joins a larger church organization. The Watson language has never been used to apply to individuals being legally bound in secular law by church rules when they join.
-
32
Jehovahs Witnesses An Organization?
by Marvin Shilmer injehovahs witnesses an organization?.
today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.
it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.
-
-
Chaserious
That's true, but whether someone has authority to show up at your door and ask questions about your sex life or whatever is purely based on church authority, not legal authority. I think it's important for readers to know that the elders have no legal authority to compel you to follow any church procedure, such as answering questions or attending judicial committees.
A common misconception that I have seen on this forum is that baptism is a legally significant event. If it were really some sort of contract, it would be invalid in the case of minors, which we all know it isn't. Minors can't enter binding contracts in the U.S. and other common law countries (and most civil law countries as well). The fact that it took place would be admissible if someone were to file a lawsuit seeking damages, but so would just about anything else of relevance.
-
53
Hello
by newdawnfades ini am a long time lurker who has finally decided to post.
i am still in along with my wife, kids and extended family.
i am in my 40s and was raised in the org.
-
-
Chaserious
Welcome! To echo what others have said, think carefully about everything do you and say about your doubts. The organization is structured to crush dissent and ferret out dissenters.
-
32
Jehovahs Witnesses An Organization?
by Marvin Shilmer injehovahs witnesses an organization?.
today i added a new article to my blog addressing a particularly dirty trick played on jehovahs witnesses.
it has to do with watchtowers legal maneuvering to place and keep its harsh religious shunning practice beyond reach of secular law enforcement.
-
-
Chaserious
The cases in the first letter only serve to make the point that secular courts are not going to question or get involved with the rulings of an ecclesiastical court. There has never been any case or statute in the U.S. that says that secular courts are going to enforce any duty to follow the internal laws of any religious organization.
The only legally significant part of the 1996 letter is the part where they say their files about members are secret and they aren't turning them over, and that the FOIA doesn't apply to them. Not every word in a letter written by a lawyer has the force of law. Sometimes lawyers try to take the moral high ground, and that's what they are doing when they say you promised to listen to our rules when you got baptized. There is no law that says you have you keep all of your promises, but when a lawyer is dealing with a case of a broken promise, he or she will almost always put in a paragraph about that in addition to any legal basis.
If you really became legally bound to Church governing procedure when you get baptized, they could go and get a court order to compel you to attend a judicial committee if you refused to go. As the maxim goes "for every right there is a remedy." If they have the right to hold people who join to a "legal burden," then what is the legal remedy against those who don't?