Posts by Corney

73

Ukraine - Nato - US crisis

by mikeflood in

don't understand....but this crisis in ukraine seems to be getting out of control....i mean, everybody knows how to start a war..... by the way, as always, people at the borg are having a field day.....

Corney

Ah, surely when you appease the aggressor, betray your allies and show readiness to surrender to enemy because 'they have nukes', it's gonna result in everlasting peace.

Finnish activist subjected to theocratic lawfare, convicted of violating privacy rights of elders

by Corney in

i believe this case was already discussed here or there but it will be useful to provide some more details and perspective.. the 7-13 december 2020 midweek meeting program included parts appallingly titled “love for jehovah stronger than love for family” and “we show love by supporting jehovah’s discipline” on the topic of shunning.

jari-pekka peltoniemi, a local exjw activist, accessed the congregation meeting via jwstream and posted an article on it, publishing facial images and voice recordings of two elders (altered nearly two weeks later) without revealing their names.

note: please have in mind that google translates the finnish word relating to shunning as "map learning" and "mapping.".

Corney

I believe this case was already discussed here or there but it will be useful to provide some more details and perspective.

The 7-13 December 2020 midweek meeting program included parts appallingly titled “Love for Jehovah Stronger Than Love for Family” and “We Show Love by Supporting Jehovah’s Discipline” on the topic of shunning. Jari-Pekka Peltoniemi, a local exJW activist, accessed the congregation meeting via JWStream and posted an article on it, publishing facial images and voice recordings of two elders (altered nearly two weeks later) without revealing their names. Note: please have in mind that Google translates the Finnish word relating to shunning as "map learning" and "mapping."

A prosecution followed, and Mr. Peltoniemi was charged under ch. 24, sec. 8 of the Criminal Code with dissemination of private information - namely, "identity, image and religious beliefs" of the elders. The trial court acquitted him, noting that while elders weren't "persons in politics, business, public office or public position, or in a comparable position," by the virtue of their holding positions of power in a local congregation they weren't supposed to keep their religion in secret. And while the facial images and the sound recordings certainly constituted private information, and their publication was unauthorized, it acceptably contributed to a debate of general interest relating to shunning and spiritual violence in general. Therefore, freedom of expression outweighed privacy concerns, and no crime was committed.

That decision was, however, reversed by the Helsinki Court of Appeal. Its main findings are:

first, religious beliefs of the elders were known only to congregation members, meeting attendees and members of general public they choose to encounter during preaching work. Holding no position of leadership or representation on the national level and no influence over JW teachings, from the point of view of the general public they were merely private individuals. Publishing information about their beliefs on the Internet deprived of the "right to disclose information belonging to the core area of their private life in such a way and to the extent they decide;"

second, although the article concerned the matter of general interest, disclosing the elders' private information was totally unnecessary to address its subject, as proved by the fact the article is still available, with faces blurred and voices altered. In light of the latter fact, the court declined to order removal of the article.

The activist was sentenced to pay €320 in fines, nearly €2,000 in damages, and nearly €20,000 in legal fees. He is apparently a pensioner, so this is a hard blow for him, and he decided to retire from activist work. Mr. Peltoniemi appealed his conviction before the Supreme Court. There is a fundraiser you can easily find.

To put the things into context, it was Mr. Peltoniemi who in 2011 initiated the door-to-door note taking saga which resulted in the org losing in the EU Court and changing its fieldwork practices in Europe. He provided the Data Protection Ombudsman with detailed information and documentation, first requesting the inquiry and then supplementing his complaint and commenting on the branch office's responses, sending at least five letters in one year. So they're apparently holding grudge on him now.

In the last five years, the org initiated at least four investigations against the activist and his affiliates, accusing him and others of computer crimes, violations or privacy, hate speech and defamation. Two cases were dismissed by police, one resulted in the above-mentioned conviction, and another is apparently pending with no information available as of now.

7

Mark O'Donnell sued by Pennsylvanian congregations over "eavesdropping" virtual meeting between lawyers and elders

by Corney in

in a civil complaint filed under seal and unsealed nearly two months ago, 11 congregations accuse the activist of violating federal, pennsylvania and maryland wiretap statutes.

in the course of the ongoing statewide grand jury investigation, all jw congregations in pennsylvania were subpoenaed to produce records pertaining to child sexual abuse.

so, meetings were arranged, county by county, between lawyers and elders on how to deal with the subpoenas.

Corney

Wiretap laws treat individuals and corporations alike, and the latter are clearly entitled to statutory remedies. Still, it is noteworthy the only plaintiffs are congregations - not a single elder - even despite this undermines their common-law invasion of privacy claim. The Second Restatement clearly says legal entities have no privacy rights, and courts follow this rule, sometimes reluctantly or indicating the issue is uncertain. The only authority to the otherwise seems to be a 1981 appellate ruling.

In light of this disadvantage, their decision to sue on behalf of corporate plaintiffs is likely deliberate. The complaint seems to claim the attorneys' client were congregations themselves and not elders. Therefore, it can be possibly argued that elders weren't authorized to waive any privilege or to share their log-in credentials with any outside person. And such an unauthorized person, especially if aware of this fact and hiding his presence, can be claimed to not be a proper party to the conversation - even under one-party consent rule. Still, these issues are pretty contentious, both legally and factually.

Password-sharing seems to be a felony in Pennsylvania, and unauthorized access - a misdemeanor in Maryland; wiretap statutes also contain criminal provisions. But I see no mention of any criminal proceeding or investigation in the case documents, and the leaker probably remains undetected. It is my understanding that Mark haven't uploaded any recording of the meeting anywhere, and Watchtower apparently has no evidence he recorded it, to his advantage.

7

Mark O'Donnell sued by Pennsylvanian congregations over "eavesdropping" virtual meeting between lawyers and elders

by Corney in

in a civil complaint filed under seal and unsealed nearly two months ago, 11 congregations accuse the activist of violating federal, pennsylvania and maryland wiretap statutes.

in the course of the ongoing statewide grand jury investigation, all jw congregations in pennsylvania were subpoenaed to produce records pertaining to child sexual abuse.

so, meetings were arranged, county by county, between lawyers and elders on how to deal with the subpoenas.

Corney

In a civil complaint filed under seal and unsealed nearly two months ago, 11 congregations accuse the activist of violating federal, Pennsylvania and Maryland wiretap statutes.

In the course of the ongoing statewide grand jury investigation, all JW congregations in Pennsylvania were subpoenaed to produce records pertaining to child sexual abuse. So, meetings were arranged, county by county, between lawyers and elders on how to deal with the subpoenas. One of such virtual meetings (via MS Teams) was organized for elders from Montgomery County on 16 February, 2023:

44. To schedule the Teams Meeting, the attorneys sent an email and Microsoft Outlook invitation to the coordinator of each of the eleven (11) body of elders.
45. Both the email and Outlook invite contained log-in information for the Teams Meeting, which included a video and telephone link.

One of the attendees shared an invite link with Mark O'Donnell who logged into the meeting - allegedly "thirty (30) minutes before the meeting start time in order to obscure his presence at the meeting." He admits he "knew that it would include some attorneys and some representatives of some Pennsylvania congregation" while denying he concealed his identity or presence during the meeting.

The conversation in question pertained to issues like

(1) the status of the ongoing investigation; (2) service of a grand jury subpoena on the congregations (including the specific years being investigated); (3) impending service of similar grand jury subpoenas on every Jehovah’s Witness congregation in Pennsylvania; (4) the possibility that the congregations may be named in a criminal indictment as the investigation proceeds; and (5) the possibility that the congregations (through their elders) could be called to testify before the grand jury...

Specifically, the congregations and their attorneys discussed: (1) that attorneys for the Jehovah’s Witnesses were meeting with each Pennsylvania congregation, county by county, and had covered twenty (20) counties by that date; (2) the existence of a “litigation hold;” (3) instructions on how to comply with the litigation hold; (4) the details behind preparing a privilege log; (5) instructions on how to comply with the grand jury subpoena; (6) discussions related to the payment of legal fees; (7) the possibility of having to testify before the grand jury; and (8) the possibility of being named in a criminal indictment.

Few days later, Mark was interviewed by a YouTuber, allegedly disclosing some information from the meeting. He also participated in a Reddit thread on the video. The video and the comments have been taken down after the start of the litigation.

The plaintiffs claim O'Donnell unlawfully and “intentionally intercept[ed] the wire ... or electronic communication and intentionally disclose[d] and/or use[d] the wire or electronic communications he intentionally intercepted during the Teams Meeting on February 16, 2023, by revealing them during his YouTube video interview on or about February 19, 2023 and endorsing them on a [Reddit] blog." The relevant laws define "intercept" as "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device" other than a standard telephone or a hearing aid device.

O'Donnell states, among others, that the meeting wasn't confidential, and/or he acted lawfully as he was invited by an attendee. The former argument seems not very strong. As to the latter, I'm not sure it will be successful under MD (where the defendant resides and where his relevant actions took place) or PA ("the focal point" of the conduct in question) wiretap statutes as both states appear to be all-party consent jurisdictions; the federal law provides for one-party consent so this is different. Another issue is whether the communications were even intercepted - that is, whether the defendant used his smartphone as a phone (which is OK) or as a computer. There is also plenty of other legal and factual issues to be dealt with by the court. Jury trial is scheduled for October now but it's unlikely to take place this year, I believe.

The congregations ask for an array of remedies, including legal fees and statutory damages of $100, multiplied by the number of days the mentioned YouTube video was available, to each of them - that is, nearly $370,000 under each statute. Given the video was uploaded by another user, and the plaintiffs did nothing to take it down, it's unlikely this claim will be granted in full. Anyway, the case is going to be hard and interesting. Mark has very good legal representation, apparently and hopefully pro bono.

Case documents are available here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69411983/burholme-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses-v-odonnell/

15

Watch Tower PA sues Russia in DC district over confiscation of Bethel

by Corney in

the watch tower society of pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on september 3, 2024, naming as defendants the russian federation, the russian ministry of health, and the almazov national medical research center.

unfortunately, i can't access the case documents, including the complaint.

i would appreciate if someone with an active pacer account could make them available.. anyway, it is enough to know the almazov center is one of the entities sued by the wts to say what this case is about.

Corney

Unsurprisingly, Russia didn't default, and the first defendant, the Almazov Center, appeared in a court. It's represented by Kevin Arthur Meehan and Juan Otoniel Perla from Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, a prominent international litigation firm with clients like Argentina, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Spain, Turkmenistan, UAE, Venezuela etc.

Anony Mous, your post, as always, makes no sense.

15

Watch Tower PA sues Russia in DC district over confiscation of Bethel

by Corney in

the watch tower society of pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on september 3, 2024, naming as defendants the russian federation, the russian ministry of health, and the almazov national medical research center.

unfortunately, i can't access the case documents, including the complaint.

i would appreciate if someone with an active pacer account could make them available.. anyway, it is enough to know the almazov center is one of the entities sued by the wts to say what this case is about.

Corney

The complaint is available now: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15eYU1SLTyVTpHInBE1pmgv_q5HJzsYrO/view?usp=drive_link

via https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1gailoq/watchtower_initiated_legal_action_against_the/

Worth noting, Watch Tower is represented by its in-house legal team.

15

Watch Tower PA sues Russia in DC district over confiscation of Bethel

by Corney in

the watch tower society of pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on september 3, 2024, naming as defendants the russian federation, the russian ministry of health, and the almazov national medical research center.

unfortunately, i can't access the case documents, including the complaint.

i would appreciate if someone with an active pacer account could make them available.. anyway, it is enough to know the almazov center is one of the entities sued by the wts to say what this case is about.

Corney

I'm not seeing why Russia would default, albeit for some tactical reasons, which is unlikely. Nothing prevents it from hiring a law firm, appearing in court, and preparing and presenting its defense.

I also don't think this litigation will significantly change the situation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, given the current state of affairs. First, it's not that important for the Russian government when you compare $30-50 million at stake here (not to mention the limited prospects of success) with, say, one billion dollars in the Oschadbank case, five billion dollars in the Naftogaz case, and fifty billion dollars in the Yukos case, all litigated before American courts right now. Second, it's not like the Russian authorities restrain themselves now. The scale and nature of the persecution are limited by the capacity of law enforcement, given their priorities and the complexity of the criminal procedure (the amount of paperwork, etc.). A drastic increase in persecution is not impossible, but it is unlikely to be caused by the lawsuit in question. On the other hand, some response from the government can be expected, which ain't good for Witnesses in Russia.

15

Watch Tower PA sues Russia in DC district over confiscation of Bethel

by Corney in

the watch tower society of pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on september 3, 2024, naming as defendants the russian federation, the russian ministry of health, and the almazov national medical research center.

unfortunately, i can't access the case documents, including the complaint.

i would appreciate if someone with an active pacer account could make them available.. anyway, it is enough to know the almazov center is one of the entities sued by the wts to say what this case is about.

Corney

The Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on September 3, 2024, naming as defendants the Russian Federation, the Russian Ministry of Health, and the Almazov National Medical Research Center. Unfortunately, I can't access the case documents, including the complaint. I would appreciate if someone with an active PACER account could make them available.

Anyway, it is enough to know the Almazov Center is one of the entities sued by the WTS to say what this case is about. The said Center operates on the premises of the former Bethel and Assembly Hall in St. Petersburg. The branch properties were owned by Watch Tower Pennsylvania, which is now apparently challenging their unlawful expropriation before US courts.

This move was predictable from the beginning, probably delayed in anticipation of the European Court's intervention. Surely, judges in Strasbourg awarded the org compensation (50 million euros or so) for property loss - except they did it precisely when Russia abandoned any willingness to follow its international obligations, at least vis-à-vis "unfriendly countries" of the "collective West". Albeit binding, that ruling - as any other issued by the ECHR - can't be forcefully enforced, thus providing little relief for Watch Tower.

Now, Paul Polidoro is prosecuting the Russian Federation before a US district court. That exactly is the problem - foreign governments are generally entitled to sovereign immunity, and in light of the recent DC circuit's Chabad 2024 ruling it's hard to see how Watch Tower can establish jurisdiction in an American court. But still, I'm not familiar with the complaint, and who knows, maybe our esteemed Esquire will manage to obtain another big victory before SCOTUS. Even so, the prospects of the hunt for Russian assets seem not very bright. Time will tell how this special legal operation will turn out.

14

Suspected Washington Kingdom Halls arsonist arrested

by Corney in

as many probably remember, in 2018-2020, multiple kingdom and assembly halls were set on fire in the state of washington, so fbi, atf, local sheriff and arson alarm foundation offered $61,000 in rewards for information leading to arrest of the arsonist.

the attacks (seven arsons and one shooting) included:.

march 19, 2018: two arson attacks - one at a tumwater kingdom hall and the second at a kingdom hall on cain road in olympia.

Corney

Finally, the arsonist has been sentenced to 11-year imprisonment.

A Washington man was sentenced today to 11 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release for federal civil rights and firearms offenses in connection with four attacks that damaged or destroyed several Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Halls in western Washington.
Mikey Diamond Starrett, also known as Michael Jason Layes, 52, of Olympia, was also ordered to pay restitution in a total amount of $714,608.70, including: $4,921.73 to the Kingdom Hall of Tumwater; $1,749.20 to the Kingdom Hall of Yelm; and $707,937.73 to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
Specifically, Starett was sentenced on four counts of violating the Church Arson Prevention Act — one count for each attack — as well as one count of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.
“The defendant in this case committed four attacks on Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Halls, causing fear and anguish to its members,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The freedom to practice the religion we choose, without discrimination or violence, is a fundamental civil right in our nation and a hallmark of our democracy from its very inception. Violence based on religious prejudice has no place in our society. The Justice Department will continue to prosecute those who target and harm houses of worship.”
“Starrett’s attacks irrevocably destroyed the sense of safety and peace that a house of worship is supposed to provide, and caused severe, permanent harm to the Jehovah’s Witness community in Washington,” said U.S. Attorney Tessa M. Gorman for the Western District of Washington. “These were not crimes against buildings, but a series of attacks against a community and a faith.”
“ATF and our law enforcement partners spent many thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours investigating these attacks and ensuring that the right person was identified,” said Special Agent in Charge Jonathan Blais of the ATF Seattle Field Division. “His guilty plea is a validation of the hard work put in by all the law enforcement involved in the investigation, and this sentence is appropriate for his egregious actions. We are all committed to defending the right of people to practice their religion, and investigating when someone acts to deprive them of that right, in this case through acts of arson and use of a firearm during, and in relation to, a crime of violence.”
According to court documents and statements made during the plea and sentencing hearings, Starrett intentionally set fire to the Kingdom Hall of Tumwater, Washington, on March 19, 2018; intentionally set fire to the Kingdom Hall of Olympia on March 19, 2018; intentionally used a firearm to shoot into the Kingdom Hall of Yelm, Washington, on May 15, 2018; and intentionally set fire to the Kingdom Hall of Olympia on July 3, 2018. The defendant admitted he committed these attacks because of the religious character of the Kingdom Halls. The attacks resulted in significant damage to each of the Kingdom Halls, including the destruction of the Olympia Kingdom Hall on July 3, 2018.
The ATF Seattle Field Division, FBI Seattle Field Office, Tumwater Police Department and Olympia Police Department investigated the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonas Lerman for the Western District of Washington and Trial Attorney Matthew Tannenbaum of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section prosecuted the case.

2

Quebec court: film classification rules unconstitutionally restrict rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

by Corney in

on 30 may, a judge of the court of quebec ruled on a case of watch tower's non-compliance with film classification rules.

the society was prosecuted for showing the story of josiah movie during the 2019 summer convention in quebec city, without it first being examined by the age rating authority, an offence punishable by fine of up to ca$2800 for the first time and up to ca$14,000 subsequently.

the offence was indeed committed, the court found, but the law in question violates religious freedom, freedom of expression and parental freedom of jehovah's witnesses and therefore doesn't apply to the defendant.

Corney

On 30 May, a judge of the Court of Quebec ruled on a case of Watch Tower's non-compliance with film classification rules. The Society was prosecuted for showing The Story of Josiah movie during the 2019 summer convention in Quebec City, without it first being examined by the age rating authority, an offence punishable by fine of up to CA$2800 for the first time and up to CA$14,000 subsequently.

The offence was indeed committed, the court found, but the law in question violates religious freedom, freedom of expression and parental freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore doesn't apply to the defendant. It imposes the requirement to provide up to hundreds of religious instruction and worship videos for prior review, along with associated costs and formalities that are pretty burdensome. The government failed to justify this "censorship regime", as the court described the scheme. The stated objectives of protecting children and informing parents and general public are legitimate, but applying the rules in question to the defendant doesn't serve these aims in light of the following facts:

(1) as admitted by classification officials, all the convention videos would be rated 'G' anyway;

(2) the law provides for numerous exceptions, e.g. for promotional videos, educational videos used in schools, colleges, libraries, museums etc., instructional videos, films on sporting events, and films exhibited at festivals and similar events. There is no rational basis for not exempting worship videos as well:

[235] Moreover, by failing to provide an exemption for religious organizations or places of worship, section 77 effectively infringes on the freedoms of religion and expression and the right to freedom of Watch Tower. Thus, while it provides an exemption for films produced for educational purposes, it fails to consider religious education and the places of worship where it is provided.
[236] Similarly, section 77 grants, among other things, an exemption to films on language learning, sports and physical fitness, whose values, while appreciable, in no way require the protection of section 2(a) of the Charter on freedom of religion or section 2(b) on freedom of religious expression, unlike the videos produced by Watch Tower.
[237] Moreover, section 77 grants an exemption to films on sporting events, leaving parents free to judge for themselves whether or not they are appropriate for their children. And yet, these films are sometimes so violent that the examiners themselves submit them to the classification process, even though no exception is made to section 77(5°).
[267] If Jehovah's Witness films were shown in a public library or museum, rather than in a Kingdom Hall or multi-purpose complex such as the Pavillon de la jeunesse, they would be exempt from classification under section 77(2). Wouldn't it be more logical for them to be exempted from classification at the very place where their religious celebrations are held?
[268] In fact, there is no logical link between the objectives of protection and information and showing a film in a museum or public library rather than in a place of worship?
[269] Similarly, there is no logical connection between exempting films about sporting events from classification under section 77(5) of the Act, even though some of them may be extremely violent, but not films about biblical stories.

The court's approach seems correct to me. It is often a case that neutral laws (e.g., those relating to film classification or data protection), which are very broad in their terms, provide for numerous exceptions for, say, news media, cultural institutions etc. but not for religious or other constitutionally protected activities. Such a difference may be reasonable but it shouldn't go unnoticed or be taken for granted.