Ok stephanie, let's say you survive a motion of summary judgement. What would you sue for? How would you prove it. Remember that each state has a code of civil procedure, so you cannot just introduce hearsay evidence or evidence that is overly prejudicial. How would you prove first that you suffered harm and second that harm can be remedied by financial conpensation.
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.
-
-
-
49
Dilemma of Shunning Policy
by Drearyweather inapologies 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.
-
-
JC323
Careful. That has been the policy for at least 25 years or so.
-
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
And that is why France had to grant JWs tax-exempt status because the ECHR said that even if you don't like a particular faith you have to treat all faiths equally.
-
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
No, a judicial committee doesn't violate any US law. Just as the Canadian Court ruled that only decision-making bodies that have a public interest are reviewable by a civil court.
And the threat of taking away tax exempt status would also be a violation of the US Constitution. Certainly, the US Government can say all religions must pay taxes, but what they cannot say is, if we don't like the way that you practice your religion you will lose your tax-exempt status.
-
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 I go back to the Scientology case because that is one of the few that a church was held liable. In it the court wrote this:
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology encouraged Wollersheim to “disconnect” from family members, including his wife and parents. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology has a general policy of encouraging members to “disconnect” from non-Scientologists who oppose Scientology or express reservations about its teachings.
The first question is whether the “disconnect” policy qualifies as a “religious practice” of Scientology. The trial court did not grant summary adjudication on this factual issue. Nonetheless, we find the evidence supported the conclusion disconnect is a “religious practice.” “Disconnect” is similar in purpose and effect to the “shunning” practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mennonites, among others. It also shares some attributes with the remote monasteries common to many other religions. All of these practices serve to isolate members from those, including family members, who might weaken their adherence to the religion. Courts have held these policies qualify as “religious practices” of other religions. (See, e.g., Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra, 819 F.2d 875, 879–880; Rasmussen v. Bennett (Mont.1987) 741 P.2d 755 [church statements condemning plaintiffs' conduct and calling for shunning were privileged under the First Amendment].) We see no justification for treating Scientology's “disconnect” policy differently and thus hold it is a “religious practice.”
We recognize the “shunning” cases have involved claims brought by former church members whom other family members were ordered to shun. The instant case, in contrast, involves a cause of action brought by a former church member ordered to shun the rest of his family not the other way around. In the circumstances of this case this is a distinction without a difference. Here appellant caused Wollersheim to isolate himself from his parents, wife and other family members even though appellant had reason to know it would inflict serious emotional injury on him. The injury to him and to the family was just as severe as if his family had “shunned” him.
And again speaking on coercion. Everyone experiences coercion. Governments coerce people to obey laws and pay taxes with the fear of being put into prison or being levied a fine. Parents coerce children in requiring them to obey their parents lest they get punished. An employer coerces an employee to do their job or they won't be paid and fired. Coercion is a normal part of everyday life.
But the distinction that the California court in the Scientology case found was not just that one would be shunned but that the Church of Scientology went a step further. The emotional pain suffered by shunning of a disfellowshipped person within JWs is certainly severe but it is a byproduct of the shunning. The Scientology church intentionally goes after the person, they purposefully use every means to destroy a person, politically, psychologically and financially, that is their intent to do so. The court recognized that a byproduct of shunning of people not conducting business with an establishment owned by a former member may be a byproduct of shunning, but the intentional enforcement of the church telling people that they must quit working for them, stop shopping with them and not honoring legal contracts is not the same thing. The church also heard that the church would have people go to the police and make false police reports against their former member. Again the court made a distinction between a byproduct of the shunning and the intentional destruction of someone's means of life and psychological wellbeing.
-
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
More recent cases:
Hubbard v J Message Group Corp.
Synopsis
Background: Former member of purported religious organization brought action against organization, seeking damages and injunctive relief for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under New Mexico law after her expulsion from organization. Organization moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.Holdings: The District Court, Kirtan Khalsa, United States Magistrate Judge, held that:1 under First Amendment, organization's beliefs qualified as religious;2 First Amendment barred defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims; and -
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
Yes certainly a church can be sued. But the bar for intentional infliction of emotional distress is so high. Also I have previously listed another 30 cases or so that shows the same thing.
If you would like recent cases please let me know.
-
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
A family can practice sharia law. Even a mosque can practice sharia law. Such as the calls to prayer or certain dietary restrictions. The goverment can stop people from killing people because it is a neutral law, regardless if you intend to do it over a religious reason or not.
Even in the scientology case the court talked about, that even if the practice of systematically attempting to destroy a person's business is a religious belief the neutral application of law would prevent that from happening.
-
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
Hey if anyone has the money to sue them or find a lawyer, which I think would be even harder, who would take it on contingency then go for it. I would love to read the complaint that is filed.
-
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
on the question of coercion again the Scientology case heighlights this. The California Supreme Court states:
To better understand why we conclude voluntary auditing may be entitled to immunity from liability for the emotional injuries it causes, consider some analogies. Assume Wollersheim were not a former Scientologist, but a former follower of one of the scores of Christian denominations. Further assume he sued on grounds a preacher's sermons filled him with such feelings of inferiority and guilt his manic-depressive condition was aggravated to the same degree Wollersheim contends auditing aggravated his mental illness in this case. Or assume another Wollersheim sued another church for a similar emotional injury on grounds his mental illness had been triggered by what a cleric told him about his sins during a confession—or series of confessions. It is one of the functions of many religions to “afflict the comfortable”—to deliberately generate deep psychological discomfort as a means of motivating “sinners” to stop “sinning.” Whether by “hell fire and damnation” preaching, “speaking in tongues,” private chastising, or a host of subtle and not so subtle techniques religion seeks to make us better people.
Many of these techniques are capable of inflicting emotional distress severe enough that it is foreseeable some with psychiatric problems will “crack” or be driven into a deep depression. But the Constitution values the good religion does for the many more than the psychological injury it may inflict on the few. Thus, it cannot tolerate lawsuits which might chill religious practices—such as auditing, “hell fire and damnation” preaching, confessions, and the like—where the only harm which occurs is emotional injury to the psychologically weak.