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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
on 10 june 2019, the finnish jw organization lodged an application against finland with the european court of human rights.
the case was quickly - by the court's standards - communicated to the finnish government on 10 december 2019. the complaint itself isn't available online but there is a brief summary (see the link above) prepared by the court:.
the application concerns the jehovah’s witnesses’ religious activities in finland and their compatibility with the data protection regulations.
background: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5684019822854144/vicarious-liability-court-appeal-dismisses-appeal-from-religious-organisation-following-sexual-assault.
the judgment (unanimous): https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf.
press summary: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0089.html.
The judgment (unanimous): https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf
Press summary: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0089.html
Vicarious liability is an unusual form of liability by which the defendant is held liable for a tort (a civil wrong) committed by a third party [1]. The law in this area has been subject to an expansive redrawing of boundaries in the 21st century [4]. There are two stages of the inquiry, both of which have to be satisfied to find vicarious liability [58(i)]. The same two tests apply to cases of sexual abuse as they do to other cases on vicarious liability [58(v)].In the vast majority of cases the tests can be applied without considering the underlying policy justification for vicarious liability [58(iv)]. In difficult cases it can be a useful final check on the justice of the outcome to stand back and consider whether that outcome is consistent with the underlying policy.
Stage One
The test at stage one is concerned with the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor (the third party, here Mark Sewell, who committed the tort) [58(i)]. Although not a point taken by counsel, the Supreme Court considers that a correct defendant for this claim was the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (the first defendant at first instance) [59-64].
The first stage test is whether the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor was one of employment or akin to employment [58(ii)]. In applying the "akin to employment" aspect of this test, a court needs to consider carefully features of the relationship that are similar to, or different from, a contract of employment. The "akin to employment" expansion does not undermine the traditional position that there is no vicarious liability where the tortfeasor is a true independent contractor [58(ii)].
The Supreme Court agrees with the lower courts that the relationship between the Jehovah's Witness organisation and Mark Sewell was akin to employment [65]. The important features here rendering the relationship akin to employment were: that as an elder Mark Sewell was carrying out work on behalf of, and assigned to him by, the Jehovah's Witness organisation; that he was performing duties which were in furtherance of, and integral to, the aims and objectives of the Jehovah's Witness organisation; that there was an appointments process to be made an elder and a process by which a person could be removed as an elder; and that there was a hierarchical structure into which the role of an elder fitted [66]-[67].
Stage Two
The test at stage two asks, whether the wrongful conduct was so closely connected with acts that the tortfeasor was authorised to do that it can fairly and properly be regarded as done by the tortfeasor while acting in the course of the tortfeasor's employment or quasi-employment [58(iii)]. The application of this "close connection" test requires a court to consider carefully on the facts the link between the wrongful conduct and the tortfeasor's authorised activities.
At the second stage of the inquiry, the courts below erred by failing to set out the correct "close connection" test and taking into account incorrect factors. [70-71].
The Supreme Court decides that the claimant has failed to satisfy the stage two test for the following reasons: (i) the rape was not committed while Mark Sewell was carrying out any activities as an elder [74]; (ii) the primary reason the offence took place was that Mark Sewell was abusing his position as a close friend of Mrs B when she was trying to help him [75]; (iii) it was unrealistic to suggest, as counsel for the claimant submitted, that Mark Sewell never took off his "metaphorical uniform" when dealing with members of the Barry Congregation [76]; (iv) although Mark Sewell's role as an elder was a "but for" cause of Mrs B's continued friendship and hence of her being with him when the offence occurred, this is insufficient to satisfy the close connection test [77]; (v) the appalling rape was not an objectively obvious progression from what had gone on before but was rather a shocking one-off attack [78]; and (vi) other factors, such as the role played by Mark Sewell’s father, and the failure of the Jehovah's Witness organisation to condemn Mark Sewell's inappropriate kissing of members of the congregation when welcoming them, were not relevant except as background [79].
As a final check, consideration of the policy of enterprise liability or risk that may be said to underpin vicarious liability confirms that there is no convincing justification for the Jehovah's Witness organisation to bear the cost or risk of the rape committed by Mark Sewell. The fact that it has deeper pockets is not a justification for extending vicarious liability beyond its principled boundaries [82].
brianna bolden-hardge, a mother of two, a devout jw and a career california civil servant, sues the office of the state controller which revoked a job offer after she objected to swearing a loyalty oath, even though three other state agencies she worked for "either did not insist on the oath or provided her a religious accommodation to it" (by allowing to submit a clarifying statement).
she sued, and the case was dismissed by a district court.
now it's heard by the ninth circuit.
Yesterday, a Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled for the plaintiff, reversing the dismissal of her complaint and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings: "Although the state employer has asserted defenses that might ultimately prevail, none of them can be considered at the motion to dismiss stage."
so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.
things must be improving, eh?.
The US supported the Chechens? Between 2004 and 2017? Laundered through Ukraine, which is hundreds miles away from Chechnya? Sounds like your GPT-3 is hallucinating again.
Russian official claimed some Ukrainians (that had nothing to do with Ukraine military) fought in Chechnya. So what? Some Russians (I mean, by both nationality and ethnicity) joined the separatists too. Said Buryatsky, for example.
I'm sorry, but your knowledge of the region is not just ("a bit of") minimal, it's negative.
so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.
things must be improving, eh?.
AM, you are spreading nonsense.
Ukraine's military actions perfectly fit within the scope of self-defence, and yes, this includes attacking legitimate military targets inside of Russia.
No, Ukraine didn't invade Russian regions before the February 24, and some isolated incidents, mostly false flag operations, don't change this fact. Ukraine didn't support Chechen separatists.
No, it's not just about retaining certain regions that were partly lost because of Russia's involvement. Ukraine is protecting its very existence and independence.
I guess the conflict is less black and white, and Ukraine and the West were often wrong, but your claims still don't make any sense. And just because you heard something about the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic, you aren't less ignorant on this situation.
