Some of their outside counsel are JWs. Don Ridley, who represents Losch in the Lopez case, works for a NYC law firm. He was at one time a WT "in house" lawyer, so I doubt they would keep using him if he exited. I believe one or more of the lawyers involved in the Conti case at the trial level was also identified here as a JW in private practice. Who knows if they might offer their services free of charge. Im sure WTS leans on them to do so. When defense counsel is going to charge $300-400 per hour for litigation that takes years thats no small thing.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chaserious
For the in-house WTS lawyers, exit options might be better than some other WTS "volunteers" but probably not as good as some think. From what I have gathered, WTS lawyers enjoy a high status within the org, even if they are paid at standard Bethel rate. Anyone who was in the org at one point knows how much status and prestige are valued. They also likely get to travel frequently on the WTS's dime.
A law degree can be a valuable credential, but there are plenty of unemployed attorneys out there, just like in most other professions. For those who have done nothing in their legal career but in-house WTS work, I doubt there is high demand at law firms or in-house positions for these folks and the skills they have developed. Some of it may be transferrable, such as real estate purchasing, estate planning, etc. But law is also a very reference-driven field. It is common to have to know someone, or at least know someone who knows someone, a classmate from law school, etc, to be considered for a job. At a minimum, employers will usually at least want to talk to references from prior legal jobs. I doubt the WTS legal dept will be eager to help defectors get new jobs.
The other alternative if you don't want to work for someone is to open your own law office, but that requires (1) a lot of up front capital, and (2) a way to attract clients, which if it involves advertising, requires even more capital. The bottom line is they are probably almost as dependent on Bethel as most other volunteers and it would probably take a lot to get fed up enough to break rank and try to hack it in the outside world.
-
300
ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION
by Watchtower-Free inhttp://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.
-
-
Chaserious
ScenicViewer - I will agree with BOTR to the extent that she believes there is a good chance the verdict does not survive appeal. Any prior appeals would not have examined the issue of whether striking the WTS's defense and entering default judgment is the appropriate remedy, so that is a new issue for appeal.
Also, I have not reviewed every document and listened to every podcast, but it appears any opinions by the appeals courts have not been made available. It is possible- and correct me if I am wrong - that the appeals courts didn't rule on the merits of the discovery orders, e.g. found that it was the correct decision that the documents had to be turned over/ depositions had to be taken, but only held that it wasn't the appropriate time to appeal. Usually, interlocutory appeals are disfavored and you have to wait until final judgment to appeal.
-
300
ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION
by Watchtower-Free inhttp://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.
-
-
Chaserious
I don't understand the outrage at all, BOTR. As a practicing lawyer, I understand working many (sometimes excessively many) hours performing work that clients are paying for, and thus not wishing to give free legal advice in your free time, especially if you view it as unappreciated. However, this is a discussion board where participation is voluntary. Personally, if I am too busy to post, I simply don't. To analogize this to real life as you suggest, if I freely chose to join a casual conversation with non-lawyers about a hot-button legal topic, such as gay marriage, it would be absurd for me to demand that they pay for my time before I learn enough about the issue to discuss it intelligently.
Law is only like brain surgery in that you need an advanced degree and a license to practice it. Unlike brain surgery, untrained but intelligent people can usually understand the basic concepts. There is a long history of coverage of significant legal developments in the press, geared toward non-laywers, especially when it impacts public policy. So if I were to comment on documents and rulings that I hadn't read, I would expect to be corrected by those who have read them, whether they are attorneys or not.
-
300
ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION
by Watchtower-Free inhttp://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.
-
-
Chaserious
I don't find it shocking or even nonBiblical that the GB has counsel present.
The WTS lawyers represented to the court that the governing body is purely a spiritual entity, just like the Dalai Lama. This was in the context of arguing that Losch is not an employee or director of any of the parties in this case, and not even a part of the WTS organization, so they allegedly have no power to be able to make him appear for a deposition. So having WTS lawyers present for their meetings seems to cut entirely against the idea that it is just a spiritual think tank with no power over the organization.
Rocky Copley, Esq. (To the Court): "These are just men who get together and discuss spirìtual concepts. That is it. It's like the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama, for their religion. . . . And our posìtion is he's not a managing agent because he's not even part of the organizatìon, and so we have no ability to even compel him to appear."
(From Lopez-14 document)
-
300
ALERT: NEW LAWSUIT settlement - $13 MILLION
by Watchtower-Free inhttp://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.
-
-
Chaserious
Thanks for posting the documents. It seems that the WTS really pissed the judge off by willfully refusing to comply with discovery orders. However, it is extremely rare for default judgments to stand, as there is a strong preference for cases to be decided on the merits whenever possible. In fact, it doesn't appear that Zalkin was able to cite a single case in his brief where a CA court allowed sanctions in the form of a default judgment on the entire underlying case to permanently stand when challenged.
But I would think that if the WTS is successful in having the default vacated, they will be required to comply with the discovery orders as a condition of vacating the judgment. Unless, of course, they are able to succeed in appealing both the default judgment and the discovery rulings simultaneously. It will be interesting to see what they do if put to the choice of having to turn over all those documents and produce Loesch for a deposition or get the default judgment tossed.
An interesting snippet from the deposition of Mario Moreno (WTS attorney)
Q: Have you ever attended these [Governing Body] meetings?
A: I haveQ: And in what capacity?
A: As a lawyer
Q: And have you attended those meetings for purposes of providing legal counsel?
A: YesTruly in the model of first century Christianity... just as the 12 apostles were always lawyered up when they met.
-
12
Can I block tv.jw.org from my internet?
by Emily24 inmy spouse and i have not been to the meetings in about 10 years.
recently i have noticed a very very strong push from my spouse's family.
they have been sending jw shit in the mail all the time.
-
-
Chaserious
If your kids try to access it and see that you've blocked it, they will probably only be more curious to find out what is so offensive about it that it has to be censored. Perhaps a talk with your spouse would be more useful than leaving him to discover that you've attempted to block the internet sites.
-
34
There is law that can be applied to being DFed or DA
by Giordano inhttp://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html.
liasobessa brought this site to our attention on another related topic.
as i began to read i found that the information was excellent and extensive.
-
-
Chaserious
As the law views it, announcing that someone who has withdrawn from the congregation/organization is no longer a member does not constitute discipline of that person. Telling active members to, in turn, avoid association with persons in that class is, in a direct sense, control of the active members, not discipline of those who have withdrawn. Just as a religion would have every right to tell its members to shun drug users, homosexuals, or members of another religion, an unfair as it might seem, it has every right (under U.S. law) to tell them to shun former members of its own religion. A court is going to view a chuch telling its members to avoid a certain class of people in the name of their doctrines as part of their right to free exercise, not as improper discipline of former members.
As for letters that have resulted in non-announcements, I am sure they work sometimes. Empty legal threats can sometimes be quite effective. Companies send baseless cease-and-desist letters all the time to individuals without legal training hoping that the letter will intimidate the recipient with the threat of legal action, even though there would be no hope of the sender actually enforcing the threat. It would not surprise me at all if bodies of elders may decide not to anncounce a DF/DA if they are afraid of legal action being taken against them personally and they will have to hire a lawyer, etc. There are also those who have sent letters and they have been announced anyway, with nothing they could do about it. As for the idea that the announcement coupled with coded messages to shun is a violation of the law, that is fine as a novel theory, but it has been rejected by courts. It is black letter law in the U.S. that WT-style shunning and announcements are entirely legal.
-
34
There is law that can be applied to being DFed or DA
by Giordano inhttp://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html.
liasobessa brought this site to our attention on another related topic.
as i began to read i found that the information was excellent and extensive.
-
-
Chaserious
The Guinn case (the one mentioned by Gio in the OP) is not precedent for legal action for WTBTS-style shunning. In fact, I took a class in law school where the Guinn case and Paul v. Watchtower (discussed elsewhere on this site; an unsuccessful lawsuit against the WTBTS for shunning that made it to a U.S. Court of Appeals) were discussed in class on the same day to juxtapose which church disciplinary actions are protected by the Constitution under U.S. law and which aren't.
The Guinn case is different because after the individual withdrew membership from her church, the church continued to treat her like a member. After her withdrawal, they (1) announced her sins from the pulpit; (2) told church members to find and confront her to try to get her to "repent"; and (3) sent letters describing her "sins" to neighboring churches. That was the basis for liability - the church violated Guinn's First Amendment right not to participate in a religious organization. It was not merely shunning that amounted to actionable conduct. The same would obviously not apply to WTBTS policy. If you withdraw, they will announce merely that you are no longer a member, and they will no longer treat you like a member, with all that we know comes along with that.
-
6
Is the WT a 501[c][3] incorporated non profit
by barry inthe reason i ask is because from what i have heard the sda church is of this statis.
because of the 5013c in the sdas there are certain laws which will effect the church now and into the future such as .
no discrimination for homosexuality and any court case would be lost in favour of a homosexual if they felt they were being discriminated against.
-
-
Chaserious
Yes, they are a 501(c)(3), and no, they do not have to give equal status to homosexuals or women under American law. To slightly clarify the point made by ABibleStudent, there is not even precedent for revoking a church's tax exempt status for racial discrimination. In the Bob Jones University case, they revoked a religoius university's tax exempt status, and the Supreme Court expressly made clear that its decision to uphold the IRS action was due to the compelling government interest in eradicating racism from the education system, and that the holding would not apply to churches or purely religious institutions. To this day, there are some churches in the US who enjoy tax-free status although they refuse to conduct inter-racial marriages and things of that nature. The bottom line is that organizations designated as religious in the US are more or less free from government inquiry into discriminatory practices that would be illegal anywhere else.