Again the argument before the Montana Supreme Court is not that the information was gathered during a confession, which is one of the statutory exceptions but that it was given during a process that normally is held confidential under normal procedures of the religion.
Posts by JC323
-
40Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding ini won’t steal barb’s thunder, but has anyone had a chance to peruse the appeal that watchtower launched yesterday?.
watchtower’s main argument is that stuff was said in confidence with confidentiality surrounding that confidence and they are confident that clergy confidentiality which is in confidence is confidential.. in short, it ‘was a secret and should stay a secret.’.
omg.. and watchtower claims that this verdict “violates the constitution of the usa”.. i wish the jury could tack on another $50m and include watchtower lawyers are to be hanged.. i just had to say something.
-
-
-
17
What About A Class Action Lawsuit For Emotional Harm From Secret Kangaroo Courts Orcestrated By The Watchtower Coporation
by Humphry ini think malice and outright fraud can be proved very easily, and what about 1st amendment violations and chilling free speech to warn friends and family about the fraud and abusiveness of this corporation.
information that needed to be passed on to loved ones but cut off by shunning imposed by an announcement of so and so have been found guilty by a secret committee of men appointed by the wt corp. to do it's dirty work of silencing critics of the corporation.
maybe the whistle blower laws can be evoked.. i'm just throwing this out there on the net to stimulate some kind of thinking about the possibilities maybe not even a class action but perhaps a couple of people heavily harmed by this way past its expiration date abusing mind control cult and its totally phony judicial system to keep members under their evil control.. to start things off and then latter a class action..
-
-
JC323
For Canada it would be Walls v Highwood Congregation.
-
17
What About A Class Action Lawsuit For Emotional Harm From Secret Kangaroo Courts Orcestrated By The Watchtower Coporation
by Humphry ini think malice and outright fraud can be proved very easily, and what about 1st amendment violations and chilling free speech to warn friends and family about the fraud and abusiveness of this corporation.
information that needed to be passed on to loved ones but cut off by shunning imposed by an announcement of so and so have been found guilty by a secret committee of men appointed by the wt corp. to do it's dirty work of silencing critics of the corporation.
maybe the whistle blower laws can be evoked.. i'm just throwing this out there on the net to stimulate some kind of thinking about the possibilities maybe not even a class action but perhaps a couple of people heavily harmed by this way past its expiration date abusing mind control cult and its totally phony judicial system to keep members under their evil control.. to start things off and then latter a class action..
-
-
JC323
Grunwald v Bornfreund
Eastern District Court of New York 696 F.Supp. 838
In action under RICO and state law, plaintiff moved for writ of mandate prohibiting rabbinical congress and defendants from making any efforts to have plaintiff withdraw action and submit it to rabbinical court and from excommunicating plaintiff, his counsel and staff. The District Court, Sifton, J., held that: (1) it was beyond the powers of court to stop excommunication so long as excommunication results of nothing more than plaintiff being excluded from his religious community, and (2) allegations that plaintiff will suffer battery, trespass or theft in the absence of religious prohibition against those acts did not warrant injunction in absence of showing that such injury was imminent or likely.
Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, inc v Waldner
Supreme Court of South Dakota 791 N.W. 2d 169
Background: Members of one faction of communal religious colony brought action against opposing faction, seeking resolution of governance dispute. The Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Brown County, Jack R. Von Wald, J., dismissed complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the matter involved a religious dispute. Plaintiff faction appealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Zinter, J., held that state courts had no jurisdiction to consider governance dispute between the factions, as resolution of the governance question was dependent upon resolution of religious disputes.
Tran v Fiorenza
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st District) 934 S.W. 2d 740
Priest brought defamation action against bishop and diocese of church, to recover for communications by bishop that priest was excommunicated. The 333rd District Court, Harris County, J.S. Blackburn, J., granted summary judgment for bishop and diocese. The Court of Appeals, Taft, J., held that issue of whether priest was actually excommunicated was ecclesiastical matter, such that First Amendment barred action.
Korean Presbyterian Church of Seattle Normalization Committee v Lee
Court of Appeals of Washington Division 1 75 Wash.App. 833
Excommunicated church members sued church and church officials for tort of outrage for announcing excommunications to congregation from pulpit. The Superior Court, Snohomish County, Larry McKeeman, J., denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Kennedy, J., held that ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded recovery.
O’Connor v Diocese of Honolulu
Supreme Court of Hawaii 77 Hawai’I 383
Catholic newspaper publisher brought action against diocese and various diocesan officials, claiming that he was wrongfully excommunicated due to diocese's opposition to views expressed in his newspaper. The First Circuit Court, City and County of Honolulu, dismissed with prejudice, and publisher appealed. The Supreme Court, Moon, C.J., held that ecclesiastical abstention doctrine embodied in both State and Federal Constitutions barred state court from addressing any of publisher's claims because their resolution would require resolution of controversies over church doctrine, law, or polity.
Ming Tung v China Buddhist Association
Supreme Court,Appellate Division, Fist Department, New York 124 A.D. 3d 13
Background: Members of religious organization until they were excommunicatedcommenced proceeding under Article 78, seeking an order directing organization to hold an annual membership meeting, as required by its bylaws, appoint a receiver to determine names and addresses of all its members eligible to vote, and hold a vote regarding its future. The Supreme Court, New York County, Geoffrey D. Wright, J., 2012 WL 11946612, granted the petition to extent of invalidating organization's membership meeting and directing that another general meeting be held with members included. Organization appealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Gische, J., held that members' petition presented nonjusticiable religious issues that could not be resolved through application of neutral principles of law.
Anderson V Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2007 WL 161035 (Only the westlaw citation is currently available)
No Synopsis is available on Westlaw at this time
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Marks v Estate of Hartgerink
Surpeme Court of Iowa 528 N.W.2d 539
After he was disciplined and ultimately excommunicated by church, former member brought action against church officials for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Church officials moved for summary judgment, and the District Court, Butler County, B.H. McKinley, J., granted motion. Former member appealed, and the Supreme Court, Andreasen, J., held that: (1) decision of church to excommunicatemember was purely ecclesiastical decision with which court would not interfere; (2) letters which had been sent only to member had not been published and could not give rise to defamation action; (3) oral communications to other church members that member had been disciplined and excommunicated were true and were absolutely protected; (4) qualified privilege attaches to statements made in context of church disciplinary proceeding or during course of ecclesiastical trial; (5) statements were not made with actual malice and were privileged as evidence presented to establish actual malice was evidence of conduct of persons who were not defendants and was irrelevant; and (6) conduct of church officials did not give rise to action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
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.
Cassell v Christin Science Board of Directors
Appeals Court of Massachusetts 81Mass.App.Ct 1114 (Unplublisehd Opinion)
No synopsis available at this time
-
17
What About A Class Action Lawsuit For Emotional Harm From Secret Kangaroo Courts Orcestrated By The Watchtower Coporation
by Humphry ini think malice and outright fraud can be proved very easily, and what about 1st amendment violations and chilling free speech to warn friends and family about the fraud and abusiveness of this corporation.
information that needed to be passed on to loved ones but cut off by shunning imposed by an announcement of so and so have been found guilty by a secret committee of men appointed by the wt corp. to do it's dirty work of silencing critics of the corporation.
maybe the whistle blower laws can be evoked.. i'm just throwing this out there on the net to stimulate some kind of thinking about the possibilities maybe not even a class action but perhaps a couple of people heavily harmed by this way past its expiration date abusing mind control cult and its totally phony judicial system to keep members under their evil control.. to start things off and then latter a class action..
-
-
JC323
At least in the US and Canada it would be impossible to sue. As both of their supreme courts have ruled that a civil court cannot intervene within the internal discipline or membership of a religion or a private organization.
-
40
Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding ini won’t steal barb’s thunder, but has anyone had a chance to peruse the appeal that watchtower launched yesterday?.
watchtower’s main argument is that stuff was said in confidence with confidentiality surrounding that confidence and they are confident that clergy confidentiality which is in confidence is confidential.. in short, it ‘was a secret and should stay a secret.’.
omg.. and watchtower claims that this verdict “violates the constitution of the usa”.. i wish the jury could tack on another $50m and include watchtower lawyers are to be hanged.. i just had to say something.
-
-
JC323
Again please tell me how a child who was molested by a non JW would bring reproach. It wouldn't. It is because the spiritual counseling that elders offer is supposed to be confidential only for those authorized to that information. And Watchtower has said repeatedly through the ARC just remove the privilege and it will make their job easier and there is no longer any privilege.
-
40
Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding ini won’t steal barb’s thunder, but has anyone had a chance to peruse the appeal that watchtower launched yesterday?.
watchtower’s main argument is that stuff was said in confidence with confidentiality surrounding that confidence and they are confident that clergy confidentiality which is in confidence is confidential.. in short, it ‘was a secret and should stay a secret.’.
omg.. and watchtower claims that this verdict “violates the constitution of the usa”.. i wish the jury could tack on another $50m and include watchtower lawyers are to be hanged.. i just had to say something.
-
-
JC323
A plethora number of lawsuits. Like 20. And please present actual evidence. Just like in this case the jury didn't believe that the first report was made.
Even the ARC if you actually look at the information 20% involved either unbaptized publishers or non-JW. That is why I don't believe it when people say that JWs don't report to keep Jehovah's name pure. How would that smear their reputation?
Even Watchtower in the Montana Case talks about how they contacted the state child services to confirm that they were in compliance of the law in the future.
-
40
Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding ini won’t steal barb’s thunder, but has anyone had a chance to peruse the appeal that watchtower launched yesterday?.
watchtower’s main argument is that stuff was said in confidence with confidentiality surrounding that confidence and they are confident that clergy confidentiality which is in confidence is confidential.. in short, it ‘was a secret and should stay a secret.’.
omg.. and watchtower claims that this verdict “violates the constitution of the usa”.. i wish the jury could tack on another $50m and include watchtower lawyers are to be hanged.. i just had to say something.
-
-
JC323
If you are abused you certainly need to hold someone accountable but you need to hold the right person accountable not just the person who has money that you can sue.
-
40
Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding ini won’t steal barb’s thunder, but has anyone had a chance to peruse the appeal that watchtower launched yesterday?.
watchtower’s main argument is that stuff was said in confidence with confidentiality surrounding that confidence and they are confident that clergy confidentiality which is in confidence is confidential.. in short, it ‘was a secret and should stay a secret.’.
omg.. and watchtower claims that this verdict “violates the constitution of the usa”.. i wish the jury could tack on another $50m and include watchtower lawyers are to be hanged.. i just had to say something.
-
-
JC323
And people here have that ability too.
I was thinking about the mother's testimony during this trial about how she turned her daughter over to her mother and stepfather because she felt that the elders did the right thing and that it was her duty to trust the elders. But when questioned about if she did everything that the elders told her to do at that time it was a no. So it was i did what the elders told me to do when it is convenient and not when it isn't
-
40
Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding ini won’t steal barb’s thunder, but has anyone had a chance to peruse the appeal that watchtower launched yesterday?.
watchtower’s main argument is that stuff was said in confidence with confidentiality surrounding that confidence and they are confident that clergy confidentiality which is in confidence is confidential.. in short, it ‘was a secret and should stay a secret.’.
omg.. and watchtower claims that this verdict “violates the constitution of the usa”.. i wish the jury could tack on another $50m and include watchtower lawyers are to be hanged.. i just had to say something.
-
-
JC323
If they don't have a clergy class then they weren't mandatory reporters and couldn't be sued. You can't have it both ways.
-
40
Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding ini won’t steal barb’s thunder, but has anyone had a chance to peruse the appeal that watchtower launched yesterday?.
watchtower’s main argument is that stuff was said in confidence with confidentiality surrounding that confidence and they are confident that clergy confidentiality which is in confidence is confidential.. in short, it ‘was a secret and should stay a secret.’.
omg.. and watchtower claims that this verdict “violates the constitution of the usa”.. i wish the jury could tack on another $50m and include watchtower lawyers are to be hanged.. i just had to say something.
-
-
JC323
There are two governing laws under the mandatory reporting exception rule.
1. is for the confession of someone.
2. is the confidential communication that takes place within a religion. If the religions normal procedure is to keep a matter confidential that is the requirement.
Confidentiality doesn't mean 1 person. As spoken of earlier a lawyer can communicate with colleagues without the privilege or confidential communication being lifted. I would even take it further. Let's say you sue someone with a lawyer's help. While preparing for the case the lawyer will interview witnesses and gather evidence. When he is interviewing witnesses he may speak about what his client told him. Does that mean that the attorney-client privilege is lifted? Or while deposing the defendant the lawyer asks questions based on what his client told him, would that remove the privilege?
The other argument is that during the punitive stage that the plaintiff's attorney wanted the jury to look at the JWs religious beliefs which have been ruled unconstitutional because no civil court can determine if a religious belief is correct or valid.
And the other arguments is that the mother of Alexis had the knowledge and responsibility to prevent her daughter from being molested by the stepfather. That twice child services investigated and twice no charges were brought. So the proximate cause of injury for Alexis was that of her mother turning her over to the stepfather.