John Davis

Joined

• started 18 topics
• posted 407 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John Davis

• 
  57

  Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  During the arguments, it seems like the court has some main issues with Mr Walls' arguments.

  First is the court kept trying to reconcile the argument that he possed that there doesn't need to be a significant civil or property right needed in order for there to be a justiciable question to be answered. Mr Fedder kept on bringing up 3 paragraphs from a UK Supreme Court case, but then one of the justices asked him how he can reconcile that argument when the preceding paragraph and subsequent paragraph is framing the argument in the context of a trust case, where there is a legal property right at stake. One justice even questioned if you are calling the association a contract then what is the consideration that the congregation gives to the members and what consideration does the member give to the congregation. The justice was saying that without the consideration on both parties there cannot be a contract.

  Second, the court seemed to have a problem with trying to determine what is the limit that Mr Walls is suggesting should be the limit. One of the justices even talked about how family relationships are important and vital parts of one's lives but that the courts cannot intervene even in those types of cases if one person doesn't feel that they are being shown enough love by another family member. The court would have to make a delineation that this level of interaction would be sufficient to bring a claim but then this level of interaction doesn't. I just don't see the court making that kind of line in the sand.
• 
  57

  Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  I agree with OC that the justice seemed concerned with if members know the rules of the organization for a fair hearing to be conducted.

  I still think that Mr. Walls attorney had a much steeper hill to climb to win before this court and the oral arguments but I think that the ruling will be a mixed bag.
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Yes poopie stopping someone from talking can be a violation of civil rights, but it isn't that easy to make the comment that it is a violation of civil rights. First depending on the country civil rights can only be violated by the government and not a private person or private organization. To give an example if you work for a company and they say you can't go on social media and speak disparagingly against the company as they deem it, that they will fire you. That is preventing freedom of speech but that is perfectly legal, at least in the US. Different countries may or do see it differently but that is why details matter.

  The second thing you have to realize is you can't sue because someone else's rights are being violated. Look at the US during the civil rights movement, a Caucasian person couldn't sue the government because an African American's right was being violated. That Caucasian person wouldn't have standing to fight that violation, only someone who has the right to remedy could file the claim. So in this case if another member of the congregation felt their freedom of speech right was being violated , that person would have to file the claim, not Mr Walls. Mr Walls would assist or even pay for it but he can't initiate the claim for that person.
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Poopie your argument would then be a violation of the other congregation's members civil rights not the civil right of Mr Walls. And you cannot sue over the violation of someone else's right because then you have no standing, your, not the one being harmed and the remedy wouldn't be directed to you.
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  I have not watched the video yet. But I have read the documents including the intervene briefs filed by the outside groups. The summary lists the questions that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider and to answer.
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  The case before the Canadian Supreme Court is actually whether civil courts even have the right and authority to hear cases and resolve disputes in voluntary organizations.
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Actually the questions before the court is:

  How do the fundamental freedoms of religion and association protect membership decisions of religious communities and other voluntary associations from state and judicial interference – What are the boundaries between what is and is not justiciable with regard to membership and other disputes between members of voluntary associations – Whether the public law remedy of judicial review applies to membership decisions made by voluntary associations such as religious communities?

  It does appear that you can watch the oral arguments for the Canadian Supreme Court from yesterday on their website.
  
  
• 
  11

  Witnessing Just After Sunrise

  by Iamallcool in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  about everytime i go to the grocery store just after sunrise, i can see the witnesses sitting and waiting inside their cars to distribute literature.

  it is not against the law for them to do that.

  i was wondering do they allow parking lot witnessing in your area?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  Most parking lots are private property. in fact, seemingly public property, such as a public library, public park or public building owned by the government is still technically private property. Those types of properties have more limits on the restrictions that can be imposed but limits can still be imposed because it is owned and operated for a specific purpose.

  The few examples of truly public property is actual streets and sidewalks where there is extremely few restrictions that can be placed except for the purpose of public safety and crowd management.
• 
  17

  Lawyer from Canada Bethel turns whistleblower

  by krismalone in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  lawyer from canada watchtower branch reveals how the watchtower protects pedophiles.

  he had the courage to speak up against the evil policies that protect pedophiles.

  this video needs to go viral.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  That is why I said could be sued, there are a lot of factors that go into if a violation like this is actionable. But it could also be that even in general terms without specifics it could be a violation of the attorney-client privilege. If you are working for an attorney and a corporate client is asking the attorney to help set policy that work is still privilege. The idea behind the privilege is to ensure that clients can speak freely to their counsel openly and frankly in order to ensure justice.

  As https://www.legaltree.ca/node/792 states:

  The purpose of solicitor-client privilege is to facilitate full and frank communication between client and lawyer in the seekingand giving of legal advice, thereby promoting access to justice. The Court has said that the “privilege is based on the functional needs of the administration of justice. The legal system, complicated as it is, calls for professional expertise. Access to justice is compromised where legal advice is unavailable.”[2] “Clients must feel free and protected to be frank and candid with their lawyers with respect to their affairs so that the legal system […] may properly function”.[3] The privilege “stretches beyond the parties and is integral to the workings of the legal system itself. The solicitor-client relationship is a part of that system, not ancillary to it”.[4]

  I am not saying in one way or another that he should be sued or suffer other penalties. It does though explain why he may not want to identify himself for the fear of suffering civil penalties over this.

  But I also state what I stated because some people here have made the thought that if a member of the US legal department fades and starts to spill the beans that this would be a huge help to lawyers like Zalkin. My point is that if a member of the US Legal Department did do that, it may provide some help but the information provided would be privileged and would most likely never be able to be used in civil litigations.

  Look at even in the Lopez case Mr Zalkin has all files of child abuse prior to 2001 but those documents are under seal and it would be a violation of the law for him to use it in any other case because those documents have a measure of privilege.
• 
  17

  Lawyer from Canada Bethel turns whistleblower

  by krismalone in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  lawyer from canada watchtower branch reveals how the watchtower protects pedophiles.

  he had the courage to speak up against the evil policies that protect pedophiles.

  this video needs to go viral.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John Davis

  If this person is, in fact, working for the legal department he could be sued for breaking of attorney-client privilege. The privilege does not just apply to lawyers but to those that are working under the direction of lawyers. Also, I am not certain in Canada but let's say that someone from the US Legal Department did this, the things that they said wouldn't be admissible in a court of law again because it is breaking the attorney-client privilege.