Posts by Chaserious

170

Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom

by TJ Curioso in

launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.

link.

Chaserious

Put aside the reality that the DOJ wouldn't do anything even with a hundred million signatures because no federal law has been broken and it would be contrary to the Constitution. Besides that, those signing the petition should think about what a slippery and dangerous slope it would be for the government to start investigating every percieved harm in society. As wearewatchingyouman pointed out, people unfortunately commit suicide for a lot of reasons. Why not criminalize adultery, being a poor parent or child, unkindness to co-workers, or the many other things that have led to suicide in some cases? Why not force everyone to be nice to everyone else under penalty of prosecution? Wouldn't anyone who turns someone against a friend so that they "shun" their former friend be part of some conspiracy to violate human rights?

Think also about the right to speak out critically that we take for granted in free societies. Essentially, the petition wants to criminalize the WT's criticism of former members and their collective decision to shun the former members. Why would the government then not have to investigate anyone who speaks out critically toward politicians, businesses, celebrities, or religious groups (any "Anti" movements come to mind?) to see if the criticism is justified? This is why the better way to combat shunning and breaking up of families is to publicize it and expose their double speak for what it is.

212

Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.

(90 pages).

http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.

Chaserious

My understanding is that anyone who's not a party to the action can submit an unsolicited letter (called an amicus curae brief)

Amicus briefs are filed by persons who are not parties in the case, but they are not the equivalent of unsolicited letters. Generally, it is not the case that anyone can file an amicus brief. Parties wishing to file such briefs usually need permission from the court. It appears the California court system follows this rule.

CA Court Rule 8.200(c):

(c) Amicus curiae briefs

(1)Within 14 days after the last appellant's reply brief is filed or could have been filed under rule 8.212, whichever is earlier, any person or entity may serve and file an application for permission of the presiding justice to file an amicus curiae brief. For good cause, the presiding justice may allow later filing.

So applying the CA rule, not only would the letter presumably not be a proper amicus brief, but it would be out of time. An application for permission to file an amicus brief would appear on the docket if one were filed. I have never heard of a court allowing someone who is not a lawyer to file an amicus brief. The standard is generally that it is able to help the court decide the case, so filing such a brief requires discsussion of the law (usually some nuance of the law that the parties themselves are unable to delve into).

15

I mentioned the Candace Conti court case in a letter to a JW

by Xanthippe in

so as i've written about this before.

an old friend of my late husband's suddenly contacted me out of the blue after over twenty years of shunning and we started writing.

i didn't know why she contacted me but i thought perhaps something had happened in the organisation to make her think, which is why i came on this forum in the first place.. she kept talking about her religion and basically 'witnessing' to me and i replied with just how long are we supposed to wait when it's been nearly 100 years since christ came into his kingdom.

Chaserious

Many JWs favor the ostrich approach when confronted with anything inconvenient. Burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist is really the easiest way to press on. The majority of JWs have already decided, whether consciously or not, that they are going to stay the course with the WTS no matter what. From there, it's just a matter of what needs to be ignored in order to stay the course. Ostrich, meet sand.

170

Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom

by TJ Curioso in

launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.

link.

Chaserious

Does AAWA have some kind of edict that their members need to have a little AAWA logo embedded in their facebook profile picture? Because at least 6 of them have that exact same thing going on. Maybe they are just trying to "advertise advertise advertise."

170

Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom

by TJ Curioso in

launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.

link.

Chaserious

The short answer is no, the Universal Declcaration of Human Rights can't be enforced. My take on the UDHR is that it's an aspirational document. It sets forth some nice things that we would all probably aspire to in the general sense. A lot of what it says is too general to actually "enforce." For example, the very first article says that "All human beings . . . should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I can't imagine how that would be enforced, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try. Trying to enforce one part of the UDHR, like the petition suggests, would arguably violate another portion, such as the one where people are free to practice the religion of their choosing. For Americans, maybe think of it like the Declaration of Independece. There's lot of nice sounding language, but it's not like you would think of going into court to try to enforce your right to the pursuit of happiness.

Also, it is absurd for whoever created this petition to suggest that the Watchtower is violating the U.S. criminal torture statute. Maybe a JW will accidentally read your petition and feel sad and depressed, so the petition drafters must be torturers also. Amateur hour...

7

Gene Smalley and the Watchtower's Blood Transfusion Doctrine

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

in recent years the legal dept.

isn't he, barr and barber the last of the old gb?

aug 22 1965, p. 18. but awake feb 22 1975, p. 30 may have reimposed it.

Chaserious

I'm sure he still is. He's a generation [standard definition] behind Jaracz, Barr, and Barber. I would say he'd be somewhere in his 70's now.

212

Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.

(90 pages).

http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.

Chaserious

No, it doesn't mean that anyone can submit a letter, at least not in the sense that you can expect it to be considered as past of the case. The judges don't post these items on the docket, so the fact that it appears does not mean that it will be considered or that the judges have read it. Generally, everything that is received from the parties is posted on the docket, which sometimes can even include things submitted by the parties that are improper or can't be considered. I'm not sure if all courts have a policy on unsolicited documents that arrive in the mail from someone other than a party. It could be that the court rule is to post everything on the docket for the sake of transparency, or it could be that this doesn't happen often and someone in the court clerk's office posted it by mistake.

212

Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.

(90 pages).

http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.

Chaserious

Regarding the letter from Joseph Herrera, just because they made a docket entry that an unsolicited letter was received doesn't mean they will consider whatever he submitted.

24

WTS Legal department ghouls

by stillin in

the society has certainly had their share of financial setbacks, especially in the pedophile department.

the legal department must actively save face and do damage control!.

i can't help but wonder how many wts attorneys are flying around to be present at estate hearings, bequeathment hearings, probate court, reading of wills, etc.

Chaserious

Stillin: Have you spoken to a lawyer about your situation yet? Not giving legal advice or telling you what to do, but you called it "our will," and also mentioned that you would change the will to exclude the WTS if you wife were to pass first. If you truly do have a mutual will, they are often set up so that one spouse can't change the will after the other spouse dies. The point is usually so that a less favored child (or a stepchild) can't be removed after one spouse dies. Only a lawyer who looks at your will can tell you how yours works. It would be a shame to be stuck with a will giving money to the WTS if it could be avoided.

9

Vermont To Tax Churches?

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/26/1255920/-vermont-moves-to-tax-churches.

woo-hoo!

i hope this starts a trend.. metatron.

Chaserious

BOTR, as to the FFRF case referred to by Sol Reform, it was out of Wisconsin, which is within the Seventh Circuit. I don't think that's an overly conservative circuit, outside of the well-known free-market judges. I initially wondered about the standing issue, which can be hard to come by if you are just asserting standing as a taxpayer, but after looking at the opinion, that wasn't the basis. The plaintiffs clearly calculated far in advance how to attack this particular statute. People like Marci Hamilton have been saying for a while that the Parsonage exemption is unconstitutional, but obviously striking it down is a small measure in the overall taxing discussion.

As to courts stepping in to eliminate tax exemptions, I think the prevailing view in that niche of the legal community is that it's not constitutionally mandated to either allow or prohibit property or income tax exemptions related to religion, and it should be left to state legislatures, in the case of property taxes, and Congress in the case of income tax exemptions. Aside from Justice Douglas's solo dissent in Walz v. Tax Commission, I don't think anyone in the upper eschelon of the courts has ever taken the position that it's unconstitutional. In fact, I suspect that if one of these laws does ever pass and allows tax breaks for charitable orgs but not churches, some kind of constitutional challenge would be launched by the church community on the basis that it's entanglement to inquire how much social benefit regiously affiliated organizations provide. Burger actually suggested that in Walz. I do think that in the end, if this form of subsidy is to end, it will have to be judicially. It's just too much of a minefield politically. I think it's possible that Douglas's reasoning might be vindicated in the end, and he might end up being 100 years ahead of the bend of history.

I also suspect that state laws on property tax exemptions would be more susceptible to eventual challenge in court than portions of the federal tax code.