Corney
JoinedPosts by Corney
-
19
Electronic Frontier Foundation v Watch Tower Society
by Corney in[disclaimer: the headline is slightly misleading since the eff itself doesn't participate in the case, so read more below].
it's not a secret that during the last two years watchtower obtained nearly 40 dmca subpoenas requiring google, facebook, instagram, twitter, soundcloud, scribd, reddit and other isps to provide personal information of users that allegedly infringed the society's copyright.. since subpoena proceeding is ex parte, almost all the requests were granted.. but one of the affected users contacted, on advice of youtube's legal team, the electronic frontier foundation (eff), and the foundation found a law firm ready to represent him pro bono, namely garvey schubert barer:.
youtube's legal department emailed the user on or about july 10, 2018, five days before the subpoena's return date, stating that it would comply with the subpoena unless it received a file-stamped motion to quash "or other type of formal objection before july 20, 2018.
-
-
-
44
Three new lawsuits against Watchtower filed under NY Child Victims Act (CVA) this October, bringing number of CVA cases up to six
by Corney innew cases:.
diaz case, filed on 10/21/2020 by zalkin law firm - two plaintiffs abused (here and hereinafter - allegedly) by two ministerial servants in 1970s.. iglesias case, filed on 10/19/2020 by eisenberg & baum, llp against various nyc and wt entities - abused by an "elder john doe" and "[travelling] overseer john" in 1970s and 1980s.. aldridge case, filed 10/06/2020 by zalkin law firm - abused by a congregation elder in 1970s.. older cases:.
tarry case (no 1 and no 2), filed on 09/17/2019 and 07/23/2020 by parker waichman llp - abused by a publisher in 1984. very weak case.
-
-
Corney
This spring is still not over, but the number of Child Victims Act cases filed against Watchotwer has already doubled, again. New cases:
7. K. G. v. SPEONK CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES et al
8. Laurie Wadsworth v. Fairport Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Fairport, New York et al
9. MIGDALIA BURGOS v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. et al
10. RKJW1 DOE v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. et al
11. PEARL GRAPE v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. et al
12. DANIEL OWEN v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. et al
-
28
Watchtower takes parody poster to court.
by Lost in the fog inanother youtube presenter falls foul of the wt society's legal team.
the watch tower copyright lawsuit targets creator of "dubtown" lego animations.
https://www.toptutorials.co.uk/watch-tower-copyright-lawsuit-targets-creator-of-dubtown-lego-animations-torrentfreak/.
-
-
Corney
I'm typically for fair use, but this case is pretty different. The video in question had not been completed at that time, while it was intended for publication. And I see no legitimate interest in using it then in violation of the owner's right to first publication, which is different from using both an already-published material or a document for limited circulation (like BOE letters). With all that said, my sympathies are on Kevin's side.
For cross-reference: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5695516093448192/electronic-frontier-foundation-v-watch-tower-society
-
10
Senior Judge to Revisit Case-Law on Authorizing Medical Treatment Against Wishes of Mature Minor
by Corney inhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ewhc/fam/2020/3003.html.
nearly two weeks ago, sir james munby, a privy council member, formerly a law commission chairman, high court's family division president, and a lord justice of appeal, issued a short emergency order in a blood transfusion case closely resembling mcewan's the children act.. here are some excerpts:.
2. the case involves the deeply troubling question of whether a blood transfusion should be administered to a young woman who is almost, not quite, 16, against her profound religious beliefs.
-
-
Corney
In another recent blood transfusion case, concerning DV, a 17⅓-year-old young man suffering from pulmonary osteosarcoma, it was revealed that Shane Brady was refused permission to appeal the above-mentioned decision of Sir Judge Munby. Mr Brady also represented DV and unsuccesfully attempted to re-run the arguments already rejected.
Some more words about DV and his case. The judge describes him as "a remarkable young man, who has been through the wars, enduring repeated cycles of chemotherapy as well as the amputation of his leg and repeated physiotherapy; yet, he has made himself a career and is doing extremely well in his metal work and engineering. He has the admiration of his colleagues. He has coped with what life has thrown at him and has gained the respect of those who come into contact with him. He has close friends and a very supportive family. He finds great comfort in his faith, and I have read much about him to his credit, not all repeated in this judgment to save his blushes."
He was 13 years old when he was first diagnosed with osteosarcoma and received a transfusion, after which he developed PTSD. An year later, he said "he began to think more and more about whether he himself wanted to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses," but at the age of 15⅔, in the middle of a two-years-long period of remission, he was baptized. Now he needs another surgery on the right lung, which has already been cancelled once because of his objections to blood transfusion.
What makes DV's case different is that the hospital didn't asked to authorize a transfusion. The NHS Trust sought "declarations that it is lawful, and in DV's best interests, that first, he should have the pulmonary metastasectomy under general anaesthetic, and secondly that the treating clinicians will not take steps towards providing him with a transfusion of whole blood, be that red cells, white cells, plasma and platelets, against his wishes." The hospital itself provided factors against use of blood products, like DV's age, the strength of his objections, potentional psychological harm, low risk (1%) of haemorrhage, danger of DV becoming reluctant to future surgery, and practical impossibility to force him to go to hospital against his will.
"The treating team agree that the single most important thing is that he has the surgery and to secure that, there must be agreement and certainty that blood products should not be used. I would like to thank the hospital and its staff for its responsible and sensible handling of the case and the assembly of a team who have all guaranteed to honour their word that no blood products will be used. So the clear view of the treating team is that to give DV blood products would be damaging to his welfare and counterproductive in all the ways that I have mentioned."
So, why to sought a court order at all if there is no serious controversy? To make sure the clinician's tough decision is right and won't be challenged; to secure the surgery will take place as soon as possible; and to prevent establishing a precedent Shane Brady wishes to achieve.
"The clinicians find it a finely balanced decision in circumstances where, firstly, they are acting against their training and instinct by determining in advance that they will not avail themselves of what might be a life-preserving form of treatment, and secondly, they wish the court to make the decision. Thirdly, this is not in any sense a trivial decision, and to see the difficulty, look what happened on 1 March 2021 where the procedure was planned, but did not take place for the reasons given. Fourthly, the court has the power to make the decision about medical treatment which may or may not have the consent of the young person, and even a 17 year old does not have the absolute right to determine what his or her treatment should be, and to provide that, even in these relatively non-contentious circumstances, a minor has the right to decide his treatment overthrows decades of legal authority."
-
16
Article in The Australian: Jehovah's Witnesses facing tax turmoil
by AndersonsInfo inhttps://www.theaustralian.com.au/.../64acd93d531eb6b7301d.... .
sorry, the article is behind a paywall.
however, here's a copy of it without the photo:.
-
-
Corney
The lawsuit is officially dismissed by agreement of the parties: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD108/2021/3911836/event/30661186/document/1762828
The story is officially over but I'm still curious about the details (that are unlikely, unfortunately, to be disclosed).
-
9
"Criminal Minds" quote
by neat blue dog ini was just watching an old episode of criminal minds and there was this description of cults:.
"cults commonly have their own language.
they invent or redefine certain words only the cult members understand.
-
-
Corney
Surprisingly, every community has its own jargon
-
13
Finland: significant (nearly 1/10) reduction in number of Kingdom Halls
by Corney inaccording to a recent helsingin sanomat article, there are over 200 kingdom halls in finland.
and over the last three years, 22 khs have been sold and five new halls have been built.
currently, seven khs are listed for sale and two new ones are under construction.
-
-
-
16
Article in The Australian: Jehovah's Witnesses facing tax turmoil
by AndersonsInfo inhttps://www.theaustralian.com.au/.../64acd93d531eb6b7301d.... .
sorry, the article is behind a paywall.
however, here's a copy of it without the photo:.
-
-
Corney
The corrected version of the article says:
Mr O'Brien said any suggestion that the commission had revoked the organisation's charitable status was "simply false" and "misleading".
It is correct that the Commission notified Watchtower Australia (by the November 24 show cause notice) of concerns possibly warranting revocation of charitable status - namely that the organisation have not ensured its directors act in its best interests and failed to "take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of vulnerable individuals outside Australia" when donating overseas (nothing indicates the Commission questioned the very practice of sending funds to foreign entities); both issues involve insufficient paperwork, I guess. The November notice also asked Watchtower for comments, sent on 18 March.
The lawsuit is about preventing the ACNC from revoking Watchtower's charitable status; its subject is the proposed revocation decision.
Apparently, the Commission subsequently informed the org, either formally or informally, that it decided not to deregister Watchtower as a charity; once (and if) it is official, the court case becomes moot and will then be quickly withdrawn/dismissed.
The sources (the corrected article and the court application) are available here (not reader-friendly, though): https://youtu.be/OJeszWNAWOk
-
67
5 kingdom halls in New Addington for sale
by usualusername1 ini had it confirmed today that 5 kingdom halls on one site in new addington are for sale.
price being asked £3.5 million.. every witness in london worked on that site.
am in shock.
-
-
Corney
The sale of the remaining Pioneer Place properties is confirmed: https://www.acorngroup.co.uk/commercial/property-sales/leisure-institution-other-for-sale-in-5-pioneer-place-croydon-surrey/50189
Read also: Case Study for sale in Croydon
-
66
Watchtower fined in Belgium
by Vanderhoven7 injehovah's witnesses in belgium have to pay €12k fine for shunning policy.
news.
you have probably heard of the trial going on in belgium about the shunning policy of jws.
-
-
Corney
That was the point of the Judges ruling. He said that the JW disfellowshipping policy was promoting something that is a violation of ones basic human rights. He wasn't talking about forcing anyone to talk to someone if they chose not to, he was talking about your right to choose for yourself who you talk to and the rights of the disfellowshipped person to being treated justly and within the laws of the land rather than by additional laws made up by a religious organization.
0. Have you been able to read the judgment? I hope you don't make conclusions based on a short quotation from a media report. Because...
1. Your words about "rights" is nothing but demagoguery. There is no "right to be treated justly", and the "right to be treated within the laws of the land rather than by additional laws made up by a religious organization" is, dependent on what you mean by it, either not existing, or any claim about it is circular.
2. In a free and pluralistic society, people are free:
- to associate or not associate with anyone;
- to influence how others exercise that right;
- to exercise the said rights jointly, through associations and communities, including strict ones, that may create and enforce their own rules, as far as it doesn't involve violence or other means of coercion.
At this point, it is not clearly established, to say the least, that ostracizing and boycotting constitute unlawful coercion. There are reasons for this. For sure, shunning as practised by the Jehovah's Witnesses often cause pain and suffering. But other forms of boycotting and similar behaviour - not institutional, less organized, less strict, both collective and individual - can have the same effects. So, where to draw the line? Don't forget that it not the role of government and law to protect people against everything causing them distress. And notwithstanding the attempts to deny or minimize that, the issues in question seriously affect fundamental rights like the freedom of speech, association, and conscience, and the right to private life.
That said, I'm not suggesting the recent decision is necessarily wrong. I would like to read and examine it and future decisions before making ultimate conclusions. What I'm cautioning against are oversimplification, tricky arguments, and hasty conclusions not based on careful consideration of facts and arguments. For example, "religious rules are not above the law" is a nonargument because the real question is what exactly "the law" says.