Posts by Richard Oliver

115

Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

we're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?

has such a thing been tried before?.

https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .

Richard Oliver

Look at Glass v First United Pentecostal Church of DeRidder. A gentleman sued his church, which is his civil right to do so, but the repercussions that came from that action is something that the government cannot intervene in.

It is evident to us that this dispute is rooted in an ecclesial tenet of The First United Pentecostal Church which prohibits members from suing fellow church members. Certainly, in civil law the plaintiffs-appellants had a right to pursue their mandamus action. However, we hasten to add that the religious repercussions that were set into motion as a result of the exercise of their civil right is another matter beyond the reach of judicial authority. In that light, anything we might consider in our analysis of the two exceptions to their petition for damages would require us to apply, interpret, and comment upon The First United Pentecostal Church tenet against the institution of suits among church members

115

Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

we're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?

has such a thing been tried before?.

https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .

Richard Oliver

From your own words "You might think bullying is worse than ostracism" so clearly there is a distinction between bullying and ostracism. What you indicated in previous posts is that if bullying leads to suicide that the person who did the bullying can be prosecuted but if bullying and ostracism is different things that would be a different circumstance.

115

Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

we're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?

has such a thing been tried before?.

https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .

Richard Oliver

The congregation is not engaging in the activity of shunning, it can be said that they are encouraging individual members to engage in the activity but the organization is not doing that. In fact, their official agents are encouraged to communicate with disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals when elders go and speak with those individuals. And again even though the statement of shunning indicates an action what it really is doing is not engaging in activity that of speech and association with someone else.

115

Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

we're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?

has such a thing been tried before?.

https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .

Richard Oliver

When you sue anyone you have to show damages that were caused by the person actions. It is only under very narrow circumstances can someone be sued for not acting. It is the difference between malfeasance and nonfeasance, malfeasance you have done an act that is against the law whereas nonfeasance is you didn't do something that you are required to do.

115

Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

we're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?

has such a thing been tried before?.

https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .

Richard Oliver

aboveusonlysky what you are referring too in bullying requires an action not the lack of action. The action is the actual bullying of someone which requires direct and systematic harassment of an individual. Shunning is different it is the lack of action on a person. And the announcement that is made at a meeting that someone is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a true statement that is also why it is not a libel statement. If they claimed that someone was an adulterer and that is why they were disfellowshipped and they never committed the act then that would be a libel statement.

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

Richard Oliver

Randy. What is the relief you are asking for?

1

Doe, et al v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.

by Richard Oliver in

this is a lawsuit brought by watchtower against an insurance company.

the company provided four insurance policies between 1989 and 1993. the policies were there to pay out any liability damages that would arise during that time from any damages caused by elders and mss advice.

there were a number of exceptions that were spelled out in the policy which included that of a sexual nature and that if an elder or ms violated a law then the payout would not qualify.

Richard Oliver

This is a lawsuit brought by Watchtower against an insurance company. The company provided four insurance policies between 1989 and 1993. The policies were there to pay out any liability damages that would arise during that time from any damages caused by Elders and MSs advice. There were a number of exceptions that were spelled out in the policy which included that of a sexual nature and that if an elder or MS violated a law then the payout would not qualify. Apparently 3 insurers filed a claim so that the insurance company would payout for damages but the company refused to pay for it. There was a civil action and the insurance company won a summary judgement. The Plaintiffs appealed the decision and the appeals court reversed that decision and remanded it back to the court for a full trial. What I can glean from the case is that it is possible that the action that arose from the advice was that of child sexual abuse.

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

Richard Oliver

I have been looking at the lawsuits in the US that relate to something like this. Obviously, it is two different laws between the US and Canada. The US is pretty strict that a court cannot intervene in a religious decision, it is called ecclesiastical abstention, it was created by the Supreme Court in the 1970s. A civil court can hear cases that enter into the secular part of a religion such as property or injury to person, but they cannot delve into if a church has made the right decision in selecting a priest or it's internal structure of who is a member. Even int he Abrams v Watchtower decision the trial court judge wrote that even if the elders knew that the accusations were false that it is an internal matter and a secular court has no business dealing with it.

Though there is one US court that broke from the pack a little bit. In Pennsylvania their Supreme Court in Bear v Reformed Mennonite Church the court did rule:

"‘. . . (T)he Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for ‘even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, (it) is not totally free from legislative restrictions.’ Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563. The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order.'"

"the “shunning” practice of appellee church and the conduct of the individuals may be an excessive interference within areas of “paramount state concern,” i.e. the maintenance of marriage and family relationship, alienation of affection, and the tortious interference with a business relationship...."

Though Mennonite shunning does go further. It prevents communication of anyone even within the home with the person that has been excommunicated.

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

Richard Oliver

It also appears that there may be some confusion. The appeal is not whether Watchtower and the Congregation did something wrong in this case, that has not even been established at the trial court level. What Watchtower is appealing is if a secular court has the right to even hear the case in the first. place.

1

Presas v Watchtower

by Richard Oliver in

the plaintiff is cosine persas, at the time of the filing he was in jail and started this action pro se, which is without a lawyer.

when a pro se lawsuit is filed the federal court screens the complaint as a matter of course to determine a few things, that would include, to see if the lawsuit is malicious in nature, if the complaint did not state a claim on which relief can be granted and if the defendant is immune from a lawsuit.

this screen occurs automatically and does not require the defendant, watchtower, to file any motions.. persas makes the allegations that he was abused by a person named rosa who he met through the congregation.

Richard Oliver

The plaintiff is Cosine Persas, at the time of the filing he was in jail and started this action pro se, which is without a lawyer. When a pro se lawsuit is filed the Federal Court screens the complaint as a matter of course to determine a few things, that would include, to see if the lawsuit is malicious in nature, if the complaint did not state a claim on which relief can be granted and if the defendant is immune from a lawsuit. This screen occurs automatically and does not require the defendant, Watchtower, to file any motions.

Persas makes the allegations that he was abused by a person named Rosa who he met through the congregation. The abuse took place both in California, USA and Baja California, Mexico, between the years of 1994 to 1998, there is no clear indication of what age he was during that time period. The complaint goes on to explain that he was coerced to perform these acts through threats that God would destroy him if he attempted to bring down his own. He also claims that he was disfellowshipped, his mother was threatened by his abuser and the New York office repeatedly ignored his letters and calls. He was also claims that he was punished through whip lashings and forced feedings.

Federal courts have the right to hear cases like this when two requirements are met, there has to a diversity of citizenship in states and the controversy must meet the minimum of $75,000. Preras did not state a claim what he said was “seeks declatory judgement that the defendants violated the laws of the land and abused him in the ways listed.” And that he was seeing monetary, compensatory punitive and nominal damaged in an amount to be determined at trial and all such further relief as the court deems necessary and just. The court determined that this was a matter that lacked in Presas complaint so the complaint was dismissed allowing him to file an amended complaint.

The court also had questioned if the case would be barred due to the statute of limitations because California has a 8 year statute of limitations that would require action be brought within that time. The 8 years start when the person turns 18 or when that person or a reasonable person should have known that they suffered harm from the abuse. Presas does not identify when he turned 18 and the court was not able to determine his birth date based on the pleading. He also does not state when he discovered that he suffered harm from the abuse. The court did not rule on whether he is barred based on the statute of limitations though.