Posts by waystation

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

waystation

I'm not trying to pick your words apart. However, there is a huge difference between backing Swaggart, and filing an amicus curiae. No doubt your daughter's boss is a very intelligent man and understands this very well; I simply think you are misinterpreting what he has said.

We should pay Caesers things to Caeser. In this case, however, there was a question of what belonged to him. If it could go either way, the Society would obviously prefer it went their way. Court cases are Caeser's idea. You're not doing anything underhanded by using the court to present your viewpoint.

Once the point was decided, the Society would obviously cooperate fully by paying Caeser what was owed on its taxable income. If the Society then chose to go to a complete donation arrangement to avoid what would have been a huge mountain of tax debt is not against the law, and neither is it morally wrong. It was a choice that was made and is working well.

I happened upon this forum when it first came one-line and realized it probably was not a place I would be comfortable. I was cleaning out my bookmarks a couple days ago and found it again. I was simply clarifying a couple of misconceptions. Everyone here seems to have found people they are comfortable with, and I am the odd man out. So I'll leave you be to enjoy yourselves with likeminded people.

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

waystation

The part that I put in quotes was obviously what I was saying she was misinformed about. Specifically, that the filer "fully agrees with the person being sued." The definition of an amicus curiae is not mine, it is from a legal dictionary.

By the way, my daughter's boss, The Attorney, was the one who said the filer of the Amicus curiae usually was in agreement with seeing the outcome of the court case to be decided in favor the one they were filing on behalf of - Jimmy Swaggart.

The filer is concerned with the one part of the case which it addresses, not necessarily the end result of the court case

Again, for the record, Jimmy was ruled to pay his sales tax owed, and Jehovah's Witnesses went to a complete donation system - even for their assembly food.

That's neither immoral nor illegal.

Edited by - waystation on 23 May 2000 0:34:42

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

waystation

double post

Edited by - waystation on 22 May 2000 22:42:26

100

Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting in

in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

waystation

Amicus curiae
Latin: friend of the court. Refers more specifically to persons asking for permission to intervene in a case in which they are neither plaintiff or defendant, usually to present their point of view (or that of their organization) in a case which has the potential of setting a legal precedent in their area of activity. This is common, for example, in civil rights cases and, in some instances, can only be done with the permission of the parties or the court.

My daughter has worked years as a paralegal and is disfellowshipped. She was appalled that the Society would do something like that. According to her, to file a "Friends of the Court" brief in behalf of someone else is extremely serious and legally says that the filer fully agrees with the person being sued!

She is misinformed.

Edited by - waystation on 22 May 2000 22:46:38

17

Education

by jelly in

jw
friends

just a little about me: i live in the usa on the west coast, i am currently going to college, ( i know a lot of brothers dont do this but i have some reasons).

i am curious if any other brothers or sisters are in college, and how everybody feels about school?

waystation

I have a job that supports me without having had to go to college. In this I am most fortunate. I have decided to take some classes at the local university just because there are some things I am interested in knowing.

Bodhisattva, I agree that in the past getting a higher education was definitely not smiled upon, but I agree with jelly that to say there was a ban is going too far. Some did go to college and were given privileges at Bethel, etc. I do admire those who follow their consciences without being unduly swayed by what other brothers' or sisters' consciences demand of them.

Although this is off the subject, I feel that I must respond to your comment that "From one point of view, mere humans ran ahead and, holding themselves up as Prophets, told us that it was "Jehovah's promise" to end this system before the passing away of a literal, chronological generation." I realize you qualified that sentence with "from one point of view," but I do think it should be noted that they were giving us their best understanding of the information they had at the time. And while the understanding of the generation has been refined, it is still much the same as it has been.

I much prefer to hold to your second option, that "it is merely another test of endurance that our God has allowed, knowing that it will be put out of mind by the pleasure of a perfect Kingdom, like birth pangs by a mother's joy."

waystation

14

Blood Fraction

by claudia in

ok i need help here, i want to know how i can justify taking blood fractions, from stored and collected blood?

how do i answer my relatives, the people who are the most wonderful people in the world even though they are roman catholic, they are not trying to persecute me, they love me, so i dont even want to go the persecution route.also where is the biblical support for fractions.

i feel it is selfish to take from bloodbanks, but not give in return, and on top of that hear badmouthing of bloodbanks.

waystation

Your call.

9

Donation Arrangement

by Frenchy in

jw
friends

i am curious as to how many of you are completely comfortable with the 'new' donation arrangement.

(okay, i know it's not new anymore but...) do you prefer it over the old way?

(i'd like to leave these two magazines with you for a contribution of fifty cents).

waystation

Frenchy, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea this is dishonest. The literature is at no charge. If they would like to make a donation to the world wide work, then can. If they wouldn't like to, they don't. If they want the literature, either way they can have it.

waystation

14

Blood Fraction

by claudia in

ok i need help here, i want to know how i can justify taking blood fractions, from stored and collected blood?

how do i answer my relatives, the people who are the most wonderful people in the world even though they are roman catholic, they are not trying to persecute me, they love me, so i dont even want to go the persecution route.also where is the biblical support for fractions.

i feel it is selfish to take from bloodbanks, but not give in return, and on top of that hear badmouthing of bloodbanks.

waystation

Claudia, if you cannot justify it, then follow your conscience. I can see your point; however, it can be compared to the relative freedom some witnesses have in certain parts of the world, notably in the U.S. We take advantage of that freedom, but neither do we actively support the government or go to war. Many criticize us for that stand.

The decision on whether or not to take blood fractions and what you base that decision on is between each Christian and Jehovah. Ultimately, you have to follow your own conscience.

waystation