christian 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.".
I don't know what you know and what you don't know, so that is why I worded bit the way I did. And I understand that you are making the innuendo that because other churches filled interveners that they are all colluding together and that where applicable watchtower is a member associated with them.
But u also are making an accusation with no evidence. You make the accusation and then hope that there is evidence to back it up.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
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.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
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.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
I think that they may send it back to the trial court with very specific instructions to narrow the proceedings to very specific things.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
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.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
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.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
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.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
Considering that the US courts have already determined that DF individuals can't sue watchtower the likelihood is not good.
christian 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.".
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.
christian 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.".
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.
