the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
The Fall Guy,
You are aware that this case was actually inititated by Darkspilver when he contacted EFF and challenged the subpoena, right? And that otherwise it would be just one of many (50+), mostly unnoticed, DMCA subpoenas? Therefore, by your logic, Darkspilver secretly conspired with Watchtower and misled EFF and a court to chill criticism. Isn't it a smear and a nonsensical accusation? Or I'm wrong and you didn't imply it?
the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
You are free to suspect anyone of anything but you cannot repeatedly smear someone's reputation and provide no evidence for your nonsensical accusations.
the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
The final order was issued few hours ago:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf
The record establishes that Darkspilver made fair use of the Watch Tower ad and chart. Consequently, he did not infringe Watch Tower’s copyrighted works, and there is no basis in the DMCA for a subpoena to compel disclosure of his identity. This is not a matter of limiting disclosure to outside counsel only, but that disclosure is not permitted at all under the law. The motion to quash is granted.
Media coverage: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/03/02/reddit-will-not-have-to-hand-over-former-jehovah-witness-identity
I'm curious if they will appeal this ruling to a circuit court.
article on msn web news couple of weeks ago.that 200 new names were added to the 1,000 or so already under persecution in russia.
the interesting part was that it was the financial crimes agency that taking the actions.
which would fit orphan crows posts that the persecution in russia was triggered by the watchtower liquidating assets and taking the money out of russia in violation of russian monetary laws profibitating the removal of money out of russia.
OMG, another OC-style (poorly informed speculations) posts.
To begin with, Rosfinmonitoring isn't a "financial crimes agency", it doesn't investigate or prosecute crimes at all. It's a financial intelligence agency charged with, among others, putting anyone suspected, indicted or convicted for offences classified as "terrorist/extremist crimes" - not for financial crimes - on the so-called "List of terrorists and extremists" (and thus making their life miserable - their accounts and cards become frozen, it becomes virtually impossible for them to find a job in the formal sector etc. etc.). In other words, Rosfinmonitoring's involvement proves nothing here. People are put on that list just because they are prosecuted for "extremist crimes", and that agency is involved just because this is one of its exclusive statutory powers.
As to "Russian monetary laws profibitating the removal of money out of Russia", they don't exist. It's just, well, OrphanCrow being OrphanCrow. The same applies to other claims in your posts (for example, Watchtower didn't "liquidat[e] assets and tak[e] the money out of Russia").
in september 2019, the branch of jehovah’s witnesses and a number of kingdom halls in são paulo brazil were raided by the police, in search of documentary evidence of criminal activities relating to child sexual abuse.
the jehovah’s witnesses claim that the raid was unlawful.
below is a translation of the court of justice determination.
Anders Andersen, AFAIK the next hearing is scheduled for 6 March.
a woman is suing a local congregation ("kingdom hall of jehovah’s witnesses, roy, utah, an unincorporated association"), individual elders and watchtower ny after, she claims, a judicial committee forced her to listen an audio recording of her own rape.
the trial court summarized the facts as alleged by the plaintiff as follows:.
at the time of the judicial committee, plaintiff was fifteen years old.
excuse the translation to english not being perfect ,.
barbara anderson.
33 mins · .
Mr. Fallacara asked for one million euros in compensation. American exorbitant awards are uncommon in Europe, so, even if he won the case, IMO he wouldn't receive more than €50,000, plus legal costs and expenses.
excuse the translation to english not being perfect ,.
barbara anderson.
33 mins · .
Frankly, I cannot find this on Mrs. Anderson's page. Is it a "friends only" post?
Also, it's difficult to understand what exactly happened from that post. After googling, it appears that both Mr. Pucci and Mr. Fallacara eventually lost their cases. But at one point, on 1 June 2004, a judge granted a preliminary injunction to Mr. Pucci and suspended his expulsion from Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Italy) on procedural grounds. That decision was reversed six months later. As noted above, both cases were decided in favor of the JW organization.
http://www.infotdgeova.it/un%20sospensione%20revocata.html
And then Mr. Fallacara allegedly lodged a complaint before the ECHR. The only source I found doesn't look credible, but even assuming he really did it, I bet the European Court will dismiss his application either on procedural grounds or as "manifestly ill-founded".
on 14 november 2018, australian-based barristers david bennett ac, qc and james gibson presented to watchtower australia and the jehovah’s witnesses organisation their commissioned review and opinion on the findings and recommendations of the royal commission into the institutional responses to child sexual abuse as it related to jehovah’s witnesses.. .
the review entitled “review of the commission’s investigation into jehovah’s witnesses and its ensuing reports” was divided into four parts, as follows:.
part one considered the history and powers of royal commissions in general.. .
slimboyfat,
Whose point? Watchtower's? I don't know, the only thing I'm aware about is that this report was provided to the Utrecht University research team and to the Dutch Minister of Justice. I think they are going to use it to rebute or challenge the ARC findings before various authorities and bodies.
smiddy3,
And did he lie, misrepresent facts of the case, mislead the court and other parties or use frivolous arguments? Are you aware of any unethical behavior on his part (it isn't unethical to represent "bad guys")? So far, his legal opinion in the "Scientology case" was unanimously accepted by the highest court of Australia.
To clarify, I'm not saying his opinion is absolutely correct. My point is that it isn't meritless.
on 14 november 2018, australian-based barristers david bennett ac, qc and james gibson presented to watchtower australia and the jehovah’s witnesses organisation their commissioned review and opinion on the findings and recommendations of the royal commission into the institutional responses to child sexual abuse as it related to jehovah’s witnesses.. .
the review entitled “review of the commission’s investigation into jehovah’s witnesses and its ensuing reports” was divided into four parts, as follows:.
part one considered the history and powers of royal commissions in general.. .
Why not publish the full report? It's available online, and since I don't need to promote my site by all means, here is the original source:
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/2020/01/23/tk-bijlage-6-the-final-report-of-the-royal-commission/tk-bijlage-6-the-final-report-of-the-royal-commission.pdf (the official site of the Government of the Netherlands)
slimboyfat If you pay people they will tell you what you want to hear. What’s the point?
David Bennett is one of the most experienced and reputable lawyers in Australia, he is almost 80 year old, and I'm pretty sure he isn't in need for money. Is it fair and reasonable to dismiss his legal opinion just because it was commissioned by Watchtower?
