MadApostate

Joined

• started 118 topics
• posted 1,065 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MadApostate

• 
  25

  A Nice Experience I Had on Sunday

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dearest mum and others,.

  an elder approached me after the meeting on sunday and said he wanted to ask me a question.

  his query dealt with john 1:1. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  What dumbs doesn't realize yet is that elder was just collecting evidence for the judicial comm that is formed to df him.
• 
  133

  BERRY LAWSUIT EVALUATED

  by MadApostate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.

  first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.

  second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  Amazing:

  Given the NHSC opinion I cited in the origial post, which says there is NO CIVIL ACTION/LIABILITY for not reporting, on what do you base your opinion that the Berrys will win because of the reporting law?
• 
  133

  BERRY LAWSUIT EVALUATED

  by MadApostate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.

  first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.

  second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  Amazing:

  IMO: If you are correct about your assertions in paragraph #2, there would be no need for your backpeddling in paragraph #3.
• 
  133

  BERRY LAWSUIT EVALUATED

  by MadApostate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.

  first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.

  second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  "Careful WTS Legal may be monitoring us. We don't want to give anything away."

  Jimminy Crickets!!! Lawsuits/court cases aren't like they are portrayed on Matlock or Murder She Wrote, with unknown facts floating around just waiting for some "supersleuth" to turn them up.

  Paul Berry was tried and convicted in a fullblown criminal trial back in October. Do you actually think there is a single minute detail that wasn't discovered by the Prosecution, Defense, or all the News Reporters that investigated those people's lives with a magnifying glass?

  As for some comments in SL's original thread about how appropriate it was that all the DB insiders kept the lawsuit "secret" until it was officially filed- COME ON!!! Does anyone actually think that the WTS hasn't anticipated this civil lawsuit from even before the criminal trial was completed?

  As for discussing the current civil lawsuit, it is as equally ignorant to think that the WTS needs tips from "barber shop lawyers" to help them defend this case. They already have every available "fact" from the criminal proceedings. This lawsuit basicly only deals with civil lawsuit "legalities", and the WTS doesn't need help with those, I'm sure.
• 
  1

  WTBS Settlements and Agreements

  by Utopian Reformist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i believe it's important to realize several key factors about all of these witness lawsuits:.

  1. if a family has been thru all of the consequences associated with litigation, rest assured they have lost all ties to the jw community and have probably incurred some major financial debt/losses.. 2. economically speaking, unless a family can afford to snub a "reasonable settlement offer", it is going to be difficult to prevent the wtbs from buying their way out of these cases, like the catholic church has been doing for years.. this means that it may take even longer to completely expose the wtbs.

  conditions and circumstances will dictate the level and amount of sacrifice, poverty, publicity, humiliation, loss, suffering, abandonment, loss of society, loss of consortium, loss of companionship and emotional damages a family can bear.. since the majority of jw's are not well educated beyond publications, the overall jw demographic is blue collar, high school degree, entry level office position or manual/menial labor and very little in savings and real property.

  1. 
• 

  MadApostate

  At the Plaintiff Berrys lawyer's website, it says that they do not settle lawsuits with "confidentially" agreements other than such dealing with the size of the settlement.

  The WTS will not settle this lawsuit under those conditions. The only reason they settled the Texas case (which the WTS would win if tried today) was so the whole mess would disappear. (Also, I would bet that the settlement amount was probably little more than the plaintiff's attorney fees.)

  This will work in the WTS's favor, because now an appellant court will likely be forced to rule on the constitutional issues, which the WTS will win in all likeihood.
• 
  133

  BERRY LAWSUIT EVALUATED

  by MadApostate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.

  first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.

  second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  I would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed Berry Lawsuit with several remarks.

  First, I am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs. Second, I have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.

  Third, I am not a troll. However, I am someone who likes to evaluate things objectively. I did not kowtow to the WTS, and I also will not kowtow to the "clique" who, for all intents and purposes, control this DB, and seem to evaluate things regarding the WTS subjectively.

  Please remember that I'm the person who suggested the idea (poorly received by this DB) that a group of us visit and support Bill Bowen at his own KH. I'm also the person who made the suggestion (totally rejected by this DB) that XJWs make use of the recently publicized SUCCESSFUL civil trespass lawsuit against a JW who called at the door of a person who had formally requested that JWs not call on them.

  Since this XJW audience totally PANNED my "successful" lawsuit suggestion, I thought that I would take a look at this Berry Lawsuit and evaluate its chances of succeeding legally. Disappointingly, it appears that most of the Plaintiff Berry's claims against the WTS are basicly the same as those made against the WTS in the recent Bryan Rees case in Maine, and the WTS won that lawsuit hands down.

  The Plaintiff charges the WTS and the local Congregation with 4 Counts. Lets evaluate each.

  COUNT I - (Negligence)

  For ordinary Negligence to occur, one party must owe a "duty of care" to another party, and the offending party must have breached that owed duty. Here is what the Maine Supreme Court said with regard to the claim that the WTS owes its members a "duty of care":
  
  [¶12] There does not exist a general obligation to protect others from harm not created by the actor. "The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965). In other words, the mere fact that one individual knows that a third party is or could be dangerous to others does not make that individual responsible for controlling the third party or protecting others from the danger.{5}

  ...we decline to recognize a general common law duty on the part of an organization such as a church to protect its members from each other.

  COUNT II - (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

  The Maine Supreme Court dismissed this same claim made by Rees due to the complaint's failure to state his claim with sufficient specificity. While Berry's complaint is much better in this regard, the Maine SC outlined that the law has never recognized a general fiduciary relationship between a church and its members. The Court also hinted that it would not be able to evaluate even a sufficiently pleaded claim due to Constitutional prohibitions against courts evaluating the internal activities of religions.

  COUNT III - Statutory Failure To Report
  Suspected Child Abuse

  In Marquay v. Eno, (a 1995 decision) the New Hampshire Supreme Court said:

  We hold that the reporting statute does not support a private right of action for its violation because we find no express or implied legislative intent to create such civil liability. First, we note that where the legislature has intended that civil liability flow from the violation of a statute, it has often so provided. See, e.g., RSA 358-A:10 (1984) (deceptive trade practices). Where, as here, civil liability for a statutory violation would represent an abrupt and sweeping departure from a general common law rule of nonliability, we would expect that if the legislature, which is presumed to recognize the common law, see Niemi v. Railroad, 87 N.H. 1, 9-10, 173 A. 361, 366 (1934), intended to impose civil liability it would expressly so provide. Here there was no expressed intent. Nor can we divine any implied intent. The reporting statute was originally enacted in 1965, applying only to physicians. Laws 1965, 193:1. It was amended in 1971 to extend the reporting requirement to all persons and to provide a $200 fine for its violation. Laws 1971, 531:2. In 1973, the penalty section was amended to provide that a violation would constitute a misdemeanor. Laws 1973, 532:8. Despite specific amendment of the penalty section, nothing in the legislative history suggests that civil liability was contemplated, let alone intended. In sum, considering that imposition of civil liability for all reporting violations would represent a sharp break from the common law and neither the statute nor the legislative history directly reveal any such intent, we are unwilling to say that violation of the child abuse reporting statute supports a private right of action. Accord Fischer v. Metcalf, 543 So.2d 785 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989) (finding no cause of action under similar Florida reporting statute); Kansas State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc., 249 Kan. 348, 819 P.2d 587 (1991) (no cause of action under Kansas reporting statute).

  We now turn to the negligence per se question, considering the relevance of the reporting statute in cases where a common law cause of action exists based on an alleged failure to exercise a recognized duty of reasonable supervision. As discussed previously, use of a statute to establish the standard of care is limited to situations where a common law cause of action exists,...
  (End Quote)

  AND, as we have already seen, there is no common law "duty of care" owed by a church to its members.

  COUNT IV - (Deceit and Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

  I don't think this Count is doing anything except making arguments for "punitive damages" and to forestall any attempt by the Defendants to allege that the lawsuit is barred by the Statute of Limitations. I don't recognize any additional legal claims in this Count.

  What all this boils down to is that this lawsuit differs little from the Rees lawsuit, which the WTS won hands-down. The only difference I spot in the two lawsuits is the Reporting Law that exists in New Hampshire, and the Supreme Court there has already said there is no civil liability for failing to report.

  If someone sees something that I'm missing, please post such.
• 
  5

  My Father-In-Law was a pedophile & JW

  by Not Perfect in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know that amazing has gotten our input on how many victims/.

  perps we might/did know.

  i am here to say that i suspected my .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  Jurs:

  I really like your idea about putting up notices on BBs in groceries, laundramats, etc., especially since laundromats are the JWs favorite way to start time and make big mag placement counts. (I wouldn't limit the notices to just the ped issue.)

  As for putting up posters on telephone poles near KH, I think that would be so hilarious that I really hate to dampen the idea. However, I recall a newspaper article once, where a utility company really went off on people who put up posters on their "private property". I think there may even typically be local ordances against such. Anyway, the article also explained that the utility companies had employees who did nothing but drive around and take down signs. They threatened to prosecute anyone they could identify. Of course, we all see certain signs continuously posted, so go at it. I would love to drive by a KH and see one of your signs!!!
• 
  56

  DATELINE-"Soon!AnyDayNow!JustAroundTheCorn...

  by Tallyman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dateline-"soon!anydaynow!justaroundthecorner!".

  just read bendrr's post.. been out of the loop for awhile.. what's the deal with this so-called piece/expose on jw-pedophilia.

  that nbc's "dateline" is supposed to be airing?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  I know you are the asshole jerk that jumped in and took Tina's side the other day when she was totally in the wrong.

  Now, you do the same in this thread, which again proves my point that there is an old "clique" here that "takes care of each other" regardless of right or wrong- just like what happens with Elder bodies in the Borg.
• 
  18

  JW fined for going door-to-door

  by Defender in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone seen this?.

  http://www.poconorecord.com/2001/local/fxp40917.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  I'll not let this good idea disappear so quickly.

  When the pedophile issue/strategy is a distant memory to everyone except the people who devoted 2 years to a "glancing blow", and there's no "encore" in sight, I'll come back and remind everyone!!!
• 
  56

  DATELINE-"Soon!AnyDayNow!JustAroundTheCorn...

  by Tallyman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dateline-"soon!anydaynow!justaroundthecorner!".

  just read bendrr's post.. been out of the loop for awhile.. what's the deal with this so-called piece/expose on jw-pedophilia.

  that nbc's "dateline" is supposed to be airing?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MadApostate

  Farkel:

  EVERYONE knows that you are the KING OF JERKS, thus I decline your offer of being labeled a jerk. (You always find a way to make sure you place everyone else beneath you.)

  Why don't you start yor own DB, where you and your suckups can sit around and massage each others egos and other body parts. I've lurked around here and H2O sufficient enough to know that the vast majority of lurkers and occasional posters can't stand you or your cronies. I believe you jerks were run off from H2O. Now, here, people come over to watch your childish antics. This place is like the WWF/WCW. People like to cheer the "freaks" on, and are entertained by them, but deep down you and your freakish friends are loathed and despised by those who retained their morals when they left the Borg.

  There are generally two classes of people that are XJWs. Those who "discovered" the Borg, and those who were "discovered" by the Borg. You and your clique were likely "discovered" by the Borg and kicked out for a variety of moral deficient reasons. Your kind show yourself. There's NOTHING Chrstian about you. THAT'S WHY YOU AREN'T A JW!!! "Some" XJWs ARE spawns of Satan, and your group are such.

  Those XJWs who still have some morals left should return to H2O, or start a new DB, and leave these satanists to their own demise!