this 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.
A suit on freedom of speech, is not a legitimate lawsuit. You can only sue the goverment for a violation such as that. The bill of rights only prevents the goverment from infringing on rights.
After the florida school shooting major stores chose to change their stance on selling certain types of guns to certain people. This was done even though no change in the law. One cannot sue the store because they arent being sold a gun, it is up to the store to enforce their policy.
this 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.
Church of Scientology lawsuit. California supreme court.
i guess some of you have heard that a woman that worked at a hotel and was forced to work on sunday's has now filed suit and won some major moolah.
so, how long before the pompous dubs who work on mtg night will follow suit and collect big bucks, i honestly think that a few have tried this before, but now that this woman and her bogus religion almost as crazy as dubs got a shitload of money, there will be many more lawsuits to come from a certain cult that either knock-knock on your door every weekend or sit in a subway station and just sit there and gossip about the other folks in the cong or steady dial up stuff on their phones..
this 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.
Then sue Watchtower over human rights.
apologies if this topic has been discussed earlier.. i was thinking of whether demanding for a ban on shunning policy would be beneficial for the larger society.
following are some things that we need to remember while advocating the issue:.
1. shunning is not limited to jw's and for many americans, it is not that controversial as it seems.. 2. jw shunning is not a dark secret policy.
It is actually funny. From a legal standpoint, the California Supreme Court ruled that because a member of the Church of Scientology was so far up in their organization and knew what the church would do if he left, that allowed him to sue. The court ruled that if a new member or someone lower in the structure sued they would have found the opposite.
this 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.
Again you cannot sue in civil court without asking for money. that is the way that civil courts are able to bring relief.
in Malloy vs Watchtower just this month the 6th circuit court of appeals wrote this.
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’
this 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.
TD this discussion is about the legal environment which is what I am speaking about. legally the courts.
Poopie- Civil suits require that you sue for money. a civil court is there to provide relief to make you whole. At least in the US you have to sue for money otherwise it would be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
Stephanie: Civil rights are only protected when the government is attempting to curtail a civil right. In the case that you referenced the NAACP sued the State of Alabama because the state was attempting to stop their association, not a private organization. The state was doing it with their state or governmental powers.
There are plenty of cases also that speaks to your assertion that if only the courts can see if someone is being Disfellowshipped because they were associating with a disfellowshipped person. In fact, that is what the claim was in the Canadian case was involved. There are also cases in the US where one church disfellowshipped another religious congregation as a whole and forbade any of their members from speaking with the members of the other church. This lead to one member attempting suicide because he was in love with a girl from the other church. The parents attempted to sue but the Alaskan supreme court ruled that it is not their place to interfere with religious law. In the Scientology case the California supreme court ruled that a church could advise it's members to stop speaking to people under penalty of discipline.
this 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.
European law may have more on civil rights but also reasons and valuation on civil suits is reduced. For example, the reason the Australian redress scheme max is at 150k or so is because that is about the max one can get in a civil trial.
this 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.
Cassell v Christin Science Board of Directors
Appeals Court of Massachusetts 81Mass.App.Ct 1114 (Unplublisehd Opinion)
No synopsis available at this time
this 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.
Hadnot v Shaw
Supreme Court of Oklahoma 826 P.2d 978
Excommunicated members of church brought tort action against church and lay leaders. The District Court, Grady County, James R. Winchester), J., granted summary judgment for defendants, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Opala), C.J., held that: (1) summary judgment was not prematurely rendered, and (2) parishioners were entitled to opportunity to discover whether conduct outside of church's First Amendment privilege occurred.
Davis v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Supreme Court of Montana 258Mont. 286
Church member sued church for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court, Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, Leif B. Erickson), J., dismissed all claims except that for breach of fiduciary duty, and both parties appealed. The Supreme Court, Weber), J., held that: (1) court properly dismissed claims; (2) fact issues precluded summary judgment on fiduciary duty claim; (3) evidence of religious sanctions imposed was inadmissible; (4) member could recover for pain and suffering; and (5) doctrine of charitable immunity did not exist in Montana.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Thomas v Fuerst
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division 345Ill.App.3d 929
Background: Plaintiff, a member of an orthodox Jewish community, brought claims of libel, violation of due process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against members of rabbinic court in connection with plaintiff's excommunication from community. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Lynn M. Egan), J., granted motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed.
Holdings: The Appellate Court, Sheila M. O'Brien), J., held that:
1 libel claims were barred by First Amendment because truth or falsity of statements at issue could not be determined without extensive inquiry into religious law and polity;
2 excommunication did not violate due process; and
3 excommunication was not so outrageous as to support claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Guinn V church of Christ of Collinsville
Supreme Court of Oklahoma 775P.2d 766
Former member of religious congregation brought personal injury action against church elders for their alleged “invasion of privacy” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” in continuing to denounce member as “fornicator” even after she had withdrawn from church. The District Court, Tulsa County, Tony M. Graham, J., entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, Opala, V.C.J., held that: (1) elders' disciplinary actions against member of church congregation prior to her withdrawal from church, consisting of their meetings with member to confront her with her sin and to request that she repent, were shielded from judicial scrutiny by free exercise clause of First Amendment; (2) elders' continued denunciation of member after she had withdrawn from church was not protected by First Amendment; and (3) church elders did not enjoy either an absolute or a qualified privilege to continue to denounce member after she had terminated membership in church.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Burgess v Rock Creek Baptist Church
United States Distict Court, District of Columbia 734F.Supp. 30
Former church member brought suit against church and its officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for the defendants' alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress in terminating her membership and treating her as a nonmember. Upon defendants' motion for summary judgment, the District Court, Charles R. Richey, J., held that dispute regarding propriety of church officials' termination of plaintiff's church membership was a matter of “ecclesiastical cognizance” that district court was precluded from adjudicating pursuant to separation of church and state compelled by First Amendment.
Pfeil v St Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of Unaltered Augsburg Confession of Worthington
Supreme Court of Minnesota 877N.W.2d 528
Background: Former parishioners brought action against church and its pastors for defamation and negligence. The District Court, Nobles County, dismissed claims. Former parishioners appealed. The Court of Appeals, 2015 WL 134055), affirmed. Former parishioners sought review.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Anderson), J., held that under First Amendment, pastors and church were not liable for statements made during course of formal church discipline proceedings.
Williams v Gleason
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th District) 26 S.W. 3d54
Church members filed claims against church's elders and others for libel, slander, and other torts related to disciplinary action brought by church's elders against members. The District Court, Harris County, Katie Kennedy), J., entered summary judgment for defendants. Members appealed. The Court of Appeals, Joe L. Draughn, J. (Assigned), held that: (1) members failed to establish prima facie tort case against individual defendants given that appellate court was constitutionally prohibited from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over ecclesiastical dispute, and (2) members could not involve state in ecclesiastical government by using civil justice system to review ecclesiastical judicatory's action.
