"You DID NOT ask me what legal civil wrong the WTS or its elders were guilty of IN THIS CASE. You asked me if I could enlighten "as to what "legally recognized" civil wrong the WTS could successfully be sued for?" I answered THAT question!"
MARVIN: Your whole "agency" spiel was with regard to a sexual abuse lawsuit scenario, thus my question was obviously directed toward that scenario. Why would I ask you to tell me just ANY situation the WTS could be successfully sued.
"In the Berry case whether the WTS can or will be successfully sued is, drumroll?. NOT YET DECIDED!"
OBVIOUSLY!!!
"As for it being a "given" that elders are agents of the WTS anytime they perform a duty required of a JW elder, it is true in those cases they are acting as WTS agents. But that is the whole question?were THOSE elders, under THOSE circumstances performing a duty REQUIRED of JW elders, or were they acting on their own as THEY thought they should act despite known WTS policy? You and I probably have our answer to that question, but how the court of NH will decide it is another story.
MARVIN: Accordingly to your train of thought, anytime an "agent" acts outside the boundaries of their designated authority, they are not an agent. That is not true. You obviously did not take my suggestion to read up on "apparent agency". Why do you think the law permits a "principal" to sue their "agent"? Because the "agent" acted outside the bonds of authority, and the "principal" was held vicariously liable for the acts.
"In an employment setting supervisors are generally regarded as agents of the employer. What if a supervisor insisted on sex for promotion from a subordinate? This is called sexual harassment! Is the supervisor acting as a company agent then? If a company has formed and made known its strict policy against sexual harassment, and they take immediate remedial action if and when they hear of each incident of sexual harassment, then courts usually would agree the supervisor was acting on his or her own in that case and not as an agent for the company. So supervisors are not always acting as agents for the company just because they are exercising power in their position."
MARVIN: Just how do you think employers are held liable when one of their employees does exactly what you have outlined. Sorry but you are completely wrong!
"Why do you think over the years the WTS has put so much emphasis on EXACTLY what wording elders should use in making judicial announcements, particularly in the last 20 years? Answer: they needed to make policy well known to the point of documenting it with each congregation for the very purpose of distancing the WTS from elders who say too much during the announcements. Just within the last year or two elders received a detailed letter giving EXACT wording for several types of announcements where character assassination had been a problem. Do you think the WTS makes this crap up just for the heck of it?
The reason is they have been sued, and it cost them!"
MARVIN: WRONG AGAIN.
As for truth being an absolute defense in a case of accused slander, I have news for you: the burden of proof falls on the one doing the talking, not the one being talked about.
MARVIN: NO SHIT!!!
Truth is only a defense if the one talking can prove what they are saying!
MARVIN: NO SHIT, AGAIN!!!
In cases where a single witness is the ONLY evidence outcomes becomes questionable because they are not always believed. If they are not believe, even if what they say is true, then they have no defense. So truth is not always a defense in a court of law. Truth is only a defense if you can prove it. If you can?t prove it, even though it might be true, the one talked about need not say a word in order to prevail.
MARVIN: TOO MUCH RAMBLING.
Obviously, the burden is on the speaker to prove what they said is true. And, obviously "defense" involves the ability to prove your defense.
The congs have been instructed not to announce "reasons" for discipline because that opens te door for a slander lawsuit in every occasion, whether the spoken words are true or not. The WTS just doesn't want to encounter a lawsuit every time such an announcementis made.
I researched this topic a couple years back, and I recall that there were only one or two incidents which involved legal action. You've blown such out of proportion.
