How about the Ninth circuit such as paul v watchtower. How about monatana supreme court. How about the Hawaii supreme court. How about arizona, Florida. Or california supreme court.
Posts by JC323
-
224How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
If you want a lawsuit of a long term member being disfellowshipped and it affecting family relationship. You can look at Anderson v Watchtower. The plantiff makes the claim that her son is prevented from speaking with her. The appeals court rules that there is no legal claim over such alienation.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Again what law would you sue over.. the example you gave was for a violation of the employment equal rights act. What law are you going to sue over.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Broken watchtower. If you read the article she would be awarded in actuality about 800k. And that is because the employer violated an actual law.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Again TD watchtower is considered a hierarchical faith. It has been ruled by courts and is the definition from Black's dictionary.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
You can not sue in the US. It would literally be impossible. You wouldn't survive summary judgment.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
TD:
Also Rasmussen v Bennett
Supreme Court of Montana 228 Mont. 106
In the present case, this Court would be violating defendants' right to free exercise of religion if we were to find defendants' statements actionable under state defamation law. The record is clear that the hierarchical church, the Watchtower Society, determined that Ray Rasmussen was not scripturally free to remarry in 1969. It is not within this Court's power to question the Watchtower Society's determination.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
What a religion policy is very important in the law but the law defines things as it sees it too. In the Paul case, the court references the Serbian Orthodox case when referring to a hierarchical judicial tribunal.
In this case, it would be that a DF'ed person could appeal a decision to the body, the body would then inform the CO, the CO would then be the one who forms an appeal committee, then if the person doesn't like the appeal committee they can appeal to the service department. The service department would then be considered the highest hierarchal tribunal within the normal discipline of the church.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
First TD: every court has recognized Watchtower as a Hierarchical religion.
Fist of all the paper that is being referenced is some 30 years old. And at the beginning of the article, the author talks about how there have not been many cases facing this issue. Since then there have been many many cases that have dealt with this issue.
The paper only real case that was one against religion is the Bear case. The Bear case had some special circumstances. The family relationship that was speaking about was the members that lived within the same house as the person who was shunned, specifically the wife and children. The wife was told by a bishop specifically that she was not even to speak to her husband under any circumstances, none. That would also include normal marital relations. Second, the Mennonite church all sold and bought only within their community goods and services. So that meant that he could not hire any employees or sell his products period.
It is important to know that most states have gotten rid of their alienation of affection tort claims.
There is not a lot of courts that reference the Bear case to allow for a member of a church to sue the church for an act of shunning.
One of the few was that of Wollershiem vs Church of Scientology. That case referenced both the Bear case and Paul v Watchtower. But the reason why the court, in this case, allowed it to be heard was that the Church of Scientology had a policy of systematically trying to destroy businesses of former church members. The court found that unlike in Paul, where it is completely lawful for a person of one church to decide to no longer work for or do business with a company that is owned by a former member. The church cannot tell people that they must break legal contracts with them or intimidate members who attempt to do business with at the company. That would be the tortious interference of business.
I don't believe Watchtower does any of the things described in both cases. While family members outside the home cannot have normal conversations with DF'ed persons, family members who are in the home are, and that mate are not encouraged to stop talking to their other mate period or encourage them to get a divorce. Watchtower also doesn't stop people from fulfilling legal contracts with a company that is owned by a DF'ed person.
You could probably sue if. You own a business and your employee witnesses, and you get DF'ed. If the Elders to the employees and say you must quit that job or you will be DF'ed. that would be tortious interference with business. Or if the elders went to people who have a legal contract with you and say you must break the contract immediately, or you would be DF'ed.
The idea is that the court must be able to look at the case in a neutral way, not interpreting whether the practice of the religion of shunning is correct or not. Those were would be property rights, contractional obligations and personal injury, such as if you slip and fall on church property. The court only another way is if there is a compelling governmental interest and even then the court would have to do it is the least obstructive way.
Even in the Canadian case, Mr Wall was not alientated from family members who live within the home. The court even recognized that it would then open up if a family member wasn't invited to a wedding, and that is not what the courts are for.