I used Miranda case to show that it is not just the courts vote to reverse or affirm a lower courts decision. That how the decision is written and how barrow or broad the decision is written can affect future cases. So in this case if u win or watchtower wins, doesn't mean that the winning side will go not necessarily get out smelling like roses or that past the vote of the court everything is just commentary. The full decision really matters with its wording.
John Davis
JoinedPosts by John Davis
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
John Davis
Well even when one side wins, the written decision also comes into play. The court may reverse a lower court decision but if the written decision gives instructions or narrows the ruling that is what the lower courts is going to use as precedent. Look at the case of Miranda v Arizona in the US. The supreme court reversed the conviction, but it was the written decision that affected case law for the whole country not just for the defendant.
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
John Davis
I think that they may send it back to the trial court with very specific instructions to narrow the proceedings to very specific things.
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
John Davis
Mr Walls obviously the court did have some major questions against watchtower including if they actually provided proper notice and if there are in fact rules were those rules followed. That is why I think their decision is going to be a mix bag. I don't think either side will come out as a full winner in this case.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
You are 100% correct that is why we do have courts. And soon we will see how Canada sees it probably soon.
There have already been cases in other countries like the US who has already ruled on these matters. But that is why different countries have different laws because not every country is the same.
-
106
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie inbecause he was shunned by his customers?.
-
-
John Davis
There is no civil right to have someone talk to you. The civil right is that the government can't prevent you from speaking. I know you want to make the right fit the way you want it, but that is not the civil right.
-
57
Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
by TerryWalstrom inhttp://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
-
-
John Davis
Considering that the US courts have already determined that DF individuals can't sue watchtower the likelihood is not good.
-
13
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
by lastmanstanding inchristian legal fellowship (clf) seems to have a new member.
the jehovah’s witnesses aka the watchtower.the membership list does not seem to be public, but i am sure that with enough inquiries from the public -that clog the arteries of their email server- we can get at the truth.just like the watchtower affiliation with the un, it seems now the watchtower has affiliated with trinitarians.the clf brings legal action on behalf of the tower.. .
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57503f9022482e2aa29ab3af/t/59d6a60ba8b2b09201dd26bf/1507239436646/clf+-+wall+-+intervener+factum.pdfhttp://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2017/8/10/clf-applies-to-intervene-at-scc-in-religious-autonomy-caseto be a member with the clf, the watchtower... "must be able and willing to sign the statement of faith...."http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/new-page/see item 2 of the clf "statement of faith"http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/statement-of-faith2 "there is one god, eternally existent in three persons: father, son and holy spirit.".
-
-
John Davis
Just look at watchtower v Stratton there were some 25 amicus curiae briefs field with the court including from the ACLU, Gun Owners of America and the Center of Individual Freedoms. Does that mean that all 25 of those organizations are in bed with each other. Or was it that they all had an interest in the case and wanted the court to hear their argument on the case.
-
13
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
by lastmanstanding inchristian legal fellowship (clf) seems to have a new member.
the jehovah’s witnesses aka the watchtower.the membership list does not seem to be public, but i am sure that with enough inquiries from the public -that clog the arteries of their email server- we can get at the truth.just like the watchtower affiliation with the un, it seems now the watchtower has affiliated with trinitarians.the clf brings legal action on behalf of the tower.. .
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57503f9022482e2aa29ab3af/t/59d6a60ba8b2b09201dd26bf/1507239436646/clf+-+wall+-+intervener+factum.pdfhttp://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2017/8/10/clf-applies-to-intervene-at-scc-in-religious-autonomy-caseto be a member with the clf, the watchtower... "must be able and willing to sign the statement of faith...."http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/new-page/see item 2 of the clf "statement of faith"http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/statement-of-faith2 "there is one god, eternally existent in three persons: father, son and holy spirit.".
-
-
John Davis
When someone files an amicus curiae, they are not filing it to be the "friend of a party" but they are filing it to be the "friend of the court". If you actually read watchtower brief in the Jimmy Swagger case they don't make reference to that ministry till the last page and when they did it was in passing. The purpose of the brief was to give a different prospective to the court.
-
13
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
by lastmanstanding inchristian legal fellowship (clf) seems to have a new member.
the jehovah’s witnesses aka the watchtower.the membership list does not seem to be public, but i am sure that with enough inquiries from the public -that clog the arteries of their email server- we can get at the truth.just like the watchtower affiliation with the un, it seems now the watchtower has affiliated with trinitarians.the clf brings legal action on behalf of the tower.. .
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57503f9022482e2aa29ab3af/t/59d6a60ba8b2b09201dd26bf/1507239436646/clf+-+wall+-+intervener+factum.pdfhttp://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2017/8/10/clf-applies-to-intervene-at-scc-in-religious-autonomy-caseto be a member with the clf, the watchtower... "must be able and willing to sign the statement of faith...."http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/new-page/see item 2 of the clf "statement of faith"http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/statement-of-faith2 "there is one god, eternally existent in three persons: father, son and holy spirit.".
-
-
John Davis
You do understand how interveners in Canada and friend of the court (forget how to spell the Latin term) in the US work. These are entities that don't have any actual standing in a case but have an interest in their own right, and they want to be heard by the court. They file a petition with the court to give them the right to be heard in the matter. They don't have any connection with any of the actual parties of the case.
From Wikipedia:
Intervenors are most common in appellateproceedings, but can also appear at other types of legal proceeding such as a trial.
In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to this however (for example, under subrule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question then the attorney general of any province or territory, or of the federal government, may intervene "as of right", i.e. without the need to be granted leave to intervene).
Courts will tend to allow an application to intervene if the applicant will provide a different perspective on the issues before the court, without expanding those issues.
Intervenors are permitted in criminal matters as well as civil matters. However, courts sometimes express concern in allowing applications for intervention in criminal matters where the applicant will make arguments against the position of the accused. It sometimes is seen as unfair that the accused in a criminal matter be required to meet arguments from sources other than the prosecution.
There are several distinct reasons why someone might wish to intervene in a proceeding:
- if the proposed intervenor is currently a litigant in a case with legal issues similar or identical to the case at hand;
- if the proposed intervenor represents a group of people who have a direct concern in the legal issues raised in a case (for example, if the case involves deportation of a particular individual, an application for leave to intervene might be made by an interest group for the rights of refugee claimants);
- if the proposed intervenor is concerned that the court's decision in a particular case might be so broad as to affect the proposed intervenor's interests; in other words it would be an intervention to ensure that the court's ruling does not have "accidental" unintended effects.
It is often said that the role of intervenors is to "assist" the court in making a just decision on the dispute at hand. While it is true that judges sometimes do indicate that intervenors have been of aid to the court in reaching a decision, the use of the word "assist" can be seen as misleading in that it implies the intervenor is acting altruistically. In general, the goal of the intervenor is to influence the court in making its decision, not just to "assist" the court.
Canadian courts (also courts in UK) use the term "amicus curiae" in a more limited sense. Generally, in Canada, an amicus curiae is someone who has been specifically commissioned by the court to provide a viewpoint which the court believes is necessary and otherwise lacking. By contrast, an intervenor is someone who has applied to the court to be heard on a matter. For example, the Quebec Secession Reference (a case in the Supreme Court of Canada) had one amicus curiae and several intervenors