A Jehovah's Witnesses Elder Is Tried for Apostasy

Comment by Alithia on 2019-05-08 18:35:43

Hello Eric and all. This little experience of yours really demonstrates what you have termed the oral law. This is what frustrated me and no doubt many others the most when I was "privileged" to be party to these shenanigans.

Things fall away from the "strictly"prescribed direction in the Flock Book so quickly to what amounts to making things up on the run to the point that there is no coherence to anything resembling Christianity in dealing with matters. And the Flock book is just ignored. Breaking out in laughter is understandable!

You have demonstrated this as you continually appeal to the standard in the flock book and it is ignored without any degree of concern by the folk guarding the door. The whole process is just a bare display of a power authority driven mentality of the Orgs leadership.

The fact that the guards are so unperturbed by their actions is a real worry and indicative where we all were at some time in the not to distant past.

It really is a study of the human condition. A frightful one. No wonder many who experience awakening flee from anything spiritual because they are terrified that they could again become enslaved and blinded in the service of another cult rather than enjoying the true freedom Jesus talked about.

Thanks Eric for the front row seat to this "show". Shame we could not be privy to the main attraction inside. That would have been a real 3 ring circus.

As always these experiences backfire and anyone watching this VDO can see clearly the injustices and the arbitrary authoritative unloving underbelly of the Org.

Keep up the good work brother, remember there are "more with us than is with them, there is nothing to fear".

• Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-09 00:59:00

  So beautifully expressed Alithia. Thankyou on behalf of readers of this site?

  • Reply by MarthaMartha on 2019-05-09 03:01:50

    Alithia, I agree and thank you too. Well said.
    ?

• Reply by Chet on 2019-05-09 01:15:44

  The actions of the guards troubled me as well. I’ve read the history of WW II extensively and I am convinced that the actions of some in the German army were the result of being so convinced that they were in the right that they never even thought about the morality of their actions. These guards struck me the same way. There was no reasoning with them. They were completely brainwashed.

  • Reply by MarthaMartha on 2019-05-09 03:00:07

    Those ‘guards’ daren’t speak their own words. We could see it in their eyes. Programmed robots.
    That, or they were frightened of you Eric!
    “ when I am weak, I am am powerful.”
    You proved that with your actions, words, and dignity.
    Anyone seeing this can tell that truth has flown out of the window in the organisation and obedience to men is king.
    So proud of you Eric!

  • Reply by AFRICAINE on 2019-05-09 06:59:55

    The mental pictures that formed when I read about the "security detail" present on the day - Very Trumpian and North Korean in nature. Arms folded, looking down on you - blank aggressive expressions.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:15:04

      Yes, Africaine. The committee members words were soothing and reassuring, but their body language and facial expressions spoke the truth about the true nature of their intentions.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:13:45

  Frightful indeed, Alithia. It shows the evil we can allow ourselves to practice when we surrender our will to other men, rather than to our Lord and our God.

Comment by Psalmbee on 2019-05-08 21:57:44

That was a fine display of standing your God given intelligence up against some of the devil's lieutenants, and showing no fear standing on their soil.

From my view, it looked like seven, horned ranking, mind controlled parrots, with probably three more in the inner court with somewhat higher judicial ranking, awaiting MVEW (MeletiVivlon/EricWilson) and his entourage.

The MCP's (mind controlled parrots) were not willing to attempt to match Scriptures with MVEW ("am few") and his hand prepared notes, and chosen witnesses. (disciples)!

The MCP's knew they were no match for the occasion. So MVEW withdrew in heraldic fashion, knowing that these MCP's were not worthy of hearing his words, and thus repeating them without understanding the stammering of their own lips. (Ps 35:4)


WTG Meleti! It took a Big Man to go knock on the dragons door and basically tell him to KMA! No fear, is was the Lord promises to those that call upon His Name!



Psalmbee

• Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-09 00:55:41

  Well said Psalmbee. Awesome and EXACTLY!!!!

• Reply by MarthaMartha on 2019-05-09 03:03:38

  Psalmbee!
  “WTG Meleti! It took a Big Man to go knock on the dragons door and basically tell him to KMA! No fear, is was the Lord promises to those that call upon His Name!”
  ?? Awesome words. True sentiments. ?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:10:27

  Thank you for making me smile this morning, PsalmBee.

Comment by Mike West on 2019-05-08 23:58:20

I can't help but wonder how many 'ranking' JW's- Circuit Overseers, perhaps even Governing Body members, are familiar with Beroean Pickets and Eric Wilson/Meleti Vivlon. If perhaps you are one of these brothers and just viewed this, can you conscientiously defend this type of action? If Jesus walked as a human right now, would he have acted like the 'brothers' involved with this judicial action against Brother Wilson? Is Brother Wilson seeking followers after himself or is it the Governing Body that demands lock step allegiance to all of their own opinions? Remember, it was the Jewish religious leaders of Jehovah's organization at that time that executed Jesus. Eerily similar to watching this- minus an actual physical crucifixion. If I was still involved as a leader in the org., this would be a wake up call. Sobering to consider....

• Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-09 00:50:48

  The so entitled, self appointed and likely self annointed "great 8" as the g.b. have proved themselves to have become the evil slave of Matt 24:46-. For me, that can be the main explanation. Woe and millstones for them if they continue this course.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:08:29

  ??

• Reply by Justin Michesloff on 2019-05-09 13:09:18

  Supposed to be in "lock step" with the dictates of the gb..... When specific reference was made to the ks book, (the written wisdom from the gb) it was completely ignored.
  
  The unwritten oral traditions of the organization and this attitude toward them have been quietly supported by the highest levels of their leadership for years. The things written are for the rank and file, and the public, not for real administration. This is both hypocritical and a true apostasizing from the Christ.
  
  Eric, both our King and Saviour and his Father are surely proud of you for your stand against the true apostasy happening today. Well done Brother.
  
  May Grace and Peace be with you.

Comment by lost in space on 2019-05-09 00:45:13

Hi ? Bereoans family including Eric, haven't watched the videos yet however can only imagine what a star chamber/kangaroo court it proved itself to be, inevitably. On her YouTube channel"witness for Jesus", Dawn has this month posted another older sister JC and Appeal that were also recorted. It was heartbreaking and abhorrent how the gb policies are attempting to "spirituality" shoot down the likes of Eric and this fine,strong and defender of true faith. Proud of both of you. Jehovah God and Jesus and the angel ?

• Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-09 00:52:45

  Oops, meant angels no doubt proud of you too!!

• Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-09 08:34:02

  Ok, two hours later, after the midweek meeting (LOL)watching now. Oh my goodness, oh my goodness. You have done an incredible mighty witness! Now there are two AND many more witnesses to this sham now. Pitiful, pitiful "men/elders". Contrasted with how you reasoned and presented yourself.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:07:01

    It wasn't easy to restrain myself from saying what I really wanted. Kudos to my companions for exercising similar restraint.

Comment by Chet on 2019-05-09 00:50:08

Wow! The world of Jehovah’s Witnesses has a certainly changed. The parking lot blocked, numerous guards, the elders staying out of sight; had I heard of such things back in the early ‘70s, I would not have believed it possible. Of course, had I known the true nature of this organization at that time, I probably would have avoided them altogether. I haven’t set foot in a Kingdom Hall in some number of years, but I have heard that locked doors are now Standard Operating Procedure, even for regular congregation meetings. One thing I find striking is the number of man hours that were invested in their attempt to control every aspect of the judicial meeting they arranged. I wonder just what it was that they feared. Did they think a mob would form? Did they fear violence? Perhaps they feared the news media becoming involved.

The refusal of the elders and guards to answer questions was astounding. I was surprised by the fact that all of these men spoke as if reading from the same script. Upon further thought, they obviously had been coached. This reveals one thing to a certainty, they were scared. I suspect that the Watchtower leadership is feeling the effects of the Ex-JW information which seems to be proliferating on the Internet, more and more. Sites such as Beroeans.net and videos such as those Eric has produced are having an effect and the Organization is, no doubt, keeping track of what is being said. The fact that Kingdom Halls are being sold off, in my humble opinion, is a strong signal of financial distress. When my confidence in the Organization began to wane, one of the first things I backed away from was financial support of the congregation and the Organization. There well may be people whom are still attending meetings and quite possibly still reporting field service time but no longer contributing financially. The Ex-JW sites on the Internet are probably hurting them in the pocketbook.

I want to applaud the courage and dignity shown by Eric and his companions. In the face of some very poor behavior on the part of the guards and elders, the reaction of Eric & company remained dignified and in control. That speaks greatly about the strength of the respective positions of the parties involved. The Witnesses, in trying to maintain control, came from an obvious position of weakness. They really had nothing but the fact that it was their property and they could dictate the terms on that basis alone. Beyond that, they were totally uninterested in the procedures from their own guidebook. They came across as very weak and very paranoid, at least in my humble opinion.

It was not easy to watch. I’ve had some bad experiences in dealing with elders in the past and seeing the same attitude I had seen on those occasions definitely brought back some old feelings. In the final analysis, videos like this are beneficial, because it allows victims of abusive actions by elders to see for themselves that they are not alone in their experiences. When something like this happens, it’s easy to blame ourselves, especially if you’ve been indoctrinated with guilt and self-doubt. I know that I felt like a failure for years, but seeing this video is a good reminder of just how ridiculous things have become. There’s no reason for anyone to feel ashamed of being abused by power-mad elders.

In closing, I would like to indulge a stream of consciousness with regard to the nature of power. Some years back, I read a treatise on power which stated that there were three forms of power; physical, financial and informational. Physical power is the lowest quality of power, financial power the second lowest quality and informational power is the highest quality form of power. The only real power the elders and guards had was the fact that the Kingdom Hall was private property. It was their property, their meeting, their rules, and nothing else mattered. Having numerous guards present is a show of force and by definition was completely in the realm of physical, low quality, power. By repeating the phrase trespassing, there was a subtle implication that the police could be summoned; once again, physical power.

But if we take a step back, the limitations of their power becomes obvious. They won the immediate battle and, indeed, prevailed. However, they provided a bonanza of negative information with regard to the secretive nature of their organization’s judicial procedures. They won the immediate battle by force, but lost overall because they paid for their use of force by releasing information which makes them look bad.

And that’s the problem with relying upon force. Force is a low quality form of power and can never stand up to the power of information. As the Internet exposes the true nature of religions the various religious organizations lose power. Religions, all religions, are manmade organizations and, ultimately, rely upon the notion that they are needed in order to interpret the will of Whomever or whatever they claim to worship. But in the information age, this notion is being challenged and people are realizing that many religions function mostly as a toll booth on whatever road they claim leads to God.

Throughout history, many battles have been fought in the name of religion and many atrocities have been committed for religious reasons. Religion has rarely been a stranger to some form of force. The fortunes of organized religion are quickly reversing as information of their true nature leaks out. Eric’s experience is meaningful and significant, but it’s far from unique. Every time the power of a religion is abused, there are witnesses to the fact and there will come a day when it becomes all but impossible for the facade to hold up because too many people will have seen “behind the curtain” so to speak and such practices as disfellowshipping will have become meaningless.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:19:35

  Excellent comment, Chet. I particularly appreciate your sharing your knowledge about the three types of power. That helps put things into perspective.

  • Reply by Chet on 2019-05-09 09:43:03

    That was a revealing piece I read on the subject and I’ve found that it seems to fit much of what is happening in the world today.
    
    These guys have nothing left, except to stamp their feet and insist upon loyalty, compliance and support. In the meantime, their support base is eroding rapidly. The actions I observed in your video, on the part of the elders and the guards, were rooted in fear. These people have bet their lives upon this religion being accurate in its predictions and anyone that questions the authority of the GB is undermining the foundation upon which they have built their lives. They seek to exert power and authority because they can’t face the reality of the situation; they bet the wrong horse. They are willing to believe even nonsense like the overlapping generations because admitting that they were wrong is unthinkable.
    
    My personal opinion is that they will become a tiny group on the margins in the near future. I’m thinking of something like the Plymouth Brethren.

• Reply by MarthaMartha on 2019-05-09 11:17:10

  Quote
  “But in the information age, this notion is being challenged and people are realizing that many religions function mostly as a toll booth on whatever road they claim leads to God.”
  
  I love this! ?

Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-05-09 02:52:59

Hi Eric

You remind of Jesus even when he was nailed to the stake, he took the time to look after his “mother / sister” Mary.

Your teaching and the ability to explain scriptures, even though your heart is bleeding & heart, is highly respected my brother.

Well done Eric

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:05:32

  Thank you, JamesBrown.

Comment by MarthaMartha on 2019-05-09 03:18:11

Also, Christian love and hugs to those friends who stood with you.
?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:05:12

  ❤

Comment by Pekanman on 2019-05-09 07:49:57

I watched this travesty and my heart went out to you Eric. That was not easy to go through and your patience and love was obvious to all.

The level of fear on the part of our "brothers" was off the charts. I know they are just following orders, the command had come down to disfellowship Eric. Not give a fair trial or allow him to defend himself, just disfellowship him.

When Ray Franz was disfellowshipped it was pretty much the same. Brothers telling him that it didn't matter what he said. The perversion of justice continues.

Shows the organizations true colours and is honestly a sign of the times. No natural affection. Looking out for their own interests and not their brother. When the elders wouldn't even come to the door to speak about allowing witnesses, that shows the level of shepherding and honest concern they have for those that have "sinned"

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-09 09:04:20

  Good point, Pekanman. "No natural affection". Thank you.

  • Reply by hezekiah1 on 2019-05-09 10:39:38

    A true sign that we are in the last days.
    understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. 2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, 4traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power.
    Need we say more

  • Reply by I am just me on 2019-05-09 12:10:38

    Well that was a gripping watch!! Massive well done to you and your friends.???
    
    They are really fulfilling their own prophecy when they say false religion will turn on true religion. They being the false religion and you representing the true. Take care of yourself ?

    • Reply by I am just me on 2019-05-09 13:26:32

      Just showing the video to family who are not witnesses . We are so surprised how hard the Jehovah’s Witnesses faces are looking. No feeling in them , no love, no concern and definitely breaking all their rules from their book. It could be the case they do not know what is in their book. ?

• Reply by Chet on 2019-05-11 10:39:39

  “The wording in the baptism talk probably did change because of the lawsuits. But the reason was to make it even easier for WT to win disfellowshipping cases that are filed. At least that’s what appears to be so in the USA. Because I am not aware of them losing any case against people who were baptized under the old baptism language, are you?”
  
  If a lawsuit goes through the entire process, to the point of a verdict, it becomes a matter of public record. Very few civil cases go that far because the defending organizations are capable of doing the math. Simply stated, it’s cheaper for them to pay than it is for them to risk losing in court. Out of court settlements virtually always contain non-disclosure agreements which prevent either party from disclosing the nature of the settlement. The important point is that they keep the matter out of the public record, which means that they don’t expose themselves to more suits based upon the precedent of the original suit.
  
  Unless the Watchtower was very foolhardy, no one would have knowledge of such a suit being won. They have attorneys and as soon as those attorneys saw that the case was likely to be lost, they’d recommend that an offer to settle out of court would be made. Hey, if they offered me the proverbial million to go away and keep my mouth shut, I’d do so in a heartbeat. I might invite you over to my new house for a ride in my new roadster followed by a shot of fine cognac, and you’d be free to conclude as you saw fit, but I would not be able to tell you that I had entered into a settlement agreement with the Watchtower. :)
  
  I am certain that the organization has been successfully sued with regard to their disfellowshipping practices. The answer is simple; their practices were not legally defensible. If the closest Bank decided to repossess my vehicle, I could sue them, because there is no security agreement in place on my vehicle and they would be acting without rights in the matter. There was no contract with them and their claim is without foundation.
  
  I never made a contract with any of the organizations which are part of what we know as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and neither did anyone else baptized before the changes which took place, circa 1985. Legally, not organizationally, but LEGALLY, I could have smoked pot, fornicated and robbed a bank the day I was baptized and they had no basis for acting because I was a Non-Denominational Christian and not a member of their organization. They had no more LEGAL right to make an announcement regarding than they would have had to make an announcement regarding the conduct of a Lutheran or a Catholic. There was no contract in place and, besides that, I had not reached the age of majority at that time, so I was not legally bound to any agreement, even if I had consented to one.
  
  Now they did have rights with regard to me. They had every right not to associate with me, but only on an individual basis. As Eric has pointed out, the biblical standard with regard to these matters was more on the order of an intervention. No announcement involved. In fact, I practice this myself. There are people I hesitate to associate with because of their moral character. I don’t do this because someone in a suit and tie got up in front of a room full of people and made an announcement. I do it because these people are known to be morally reprehensible and I don’t want anyone to think that I behave in such a manner, nor do I want the negative influence of such associations.
  
  The original disfellowshipping arrangement was not legally defensible. It presumed upon a contract which did not exist. In 1980, when there was an upheaval at Bethel, they sought to assert control based upon this legally indefensible arrangement and found out that they did not have a leg to stand on. The years since have seen a constant revision of these practices, no doubt shaped by legal precedents. They have fine tuned their practices to make them legally viable, but they cannot touch anyone baptized before 1985. They may try, and they may even get away with it, but as far as the Law is concerned, they do not have an agreement upon which to base judicial actions.

Comment by Decepti on 2019-05-09 13:16:54

Eric,

I am glad (and not at all surprised) that you stood your ground and did not let these bullies coerce you into submitting to their self-perceived "authority". I was flabbergasted to see the level of intimidation ( blocked parking lot and multiple "guards" - what is this organization coming to??) that was employed. I can only surmise that the intent of this "show of force" was to instill a sense of uncertainty and fear in you - to weaken your position.

Attempting any form of reason with the judicial committee members or the goons at the door must have felt like banging your head against a wall. To be honest, your composure and ability to keep calm far surpassed anything I would have been capable of. Were it I in the same situation, my life previous to association with the Watch Tower would have come to the surface, and I'm sure it would not have been pretty for the committee or the goons. Anyway... I digress. Well done to you sir.

Capturing this entire event on video/audio was a brilliant move. Once again the Watch Tower's "company men" have set the example for how an unloving, controlling and narcissistic organization will deal with anyone who questions their authority, policies or practices. Truly an arrogant lot of hypocrites - Pharisees indeed.

Wishing you well.
Agape

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-10 08:45:24

  Thanks Decepti

Comment by PoetryofProvidence on 2019-05-09 14:09:17

It is evident that these ones are servants of neither the Our Lord Jesus or his Father. I cannot imagine them ever receiving the the commendation of "Well done thou good and faithful servant" I will put you over many things . This "brand" of loyalty cannot even possibly be mistaken for the works of those who love the "True Master of Life" . Well done Eric, may the freedom of Our precious Lord never be hidden .

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-10 08:46:25

  Thanks Poetry, and best regards dear friend.

Comment by Mara Fayde on 2019-05-09 15:16:36

I want to share this quote from Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

“When you do something that harms others- get them in trouble, verbally abuse them or punch them out- a powerful new factor comes into play: the need to justify what you did. Take a boy who goes along with a group of his fellow seventh graders who are taunting and bullying a weaker kid who did them no harm. The boy likes being part of the gang but his heart really isn’t in the bullying. Later, he feels some dissonance about what he did. “How can a decent kid like me,” he wonders, “have done such a cruel thing to a nice, innocent little kid like him?” To reduce dissonance, he will try to convince himself that the victim is neither nice nor innocent: “He is such a nerd and a crybaby. Besides, he would have done the same to me if he had the chance.” Once the boy starts down the path of blaming the victim, he becomes more likely to beat up on the victim with even greater ferocity the next chance he gets. Justifying his first hurtful act sets the stage for more aggression.”

You see this same phenomenon at work in the bullying elders. They see themselves as decent, good guys, therefore you must bad and deserve the cruel treatment they’ve unloaded on you. They can deprive you of all rights, respect, and dignity while still holding onto their illusion of being on side of Good.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-10 08:47:40

  That's very insightful.

Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-05-09 21:44:04

Hi Eric

You have become a martyr. The definition of martyr:

A person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs, and is often admired because of it.

The org doesn’t know just how much damage they have done to themselves. Let me explain

There is no video on YouTube that I have come across of someone who has been mistreated by JW’s producer’s like this one Eric.

Well done. I will NEVER appear before a judicial committee, now that I have seen this. Could you imagine if you wanted to push this further and ask a TV network to air this? Think what that will do to the org???

In Australia if that would have happened to me in my late 60’s and the show of force that was presented, I personally would have gone to - Current affairs – that’s a show that deals with people who have been abused, and mistreated and among other things & if it was aired nationwide, think Eric what that would have done to the reputation of JW’s.

The org has helped you to reach a wider audience with what has happened to you.

Take care my brother

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-10 08:51:10

  That's actually a pretty good idea, JamesBrown.

Comment by messenger on 2019-05-10 01:40:29

Those elders and guards knew what was in their elders manual. It didn't matter to them. Once a Jehovah's Witness is viewed as taking a stand against their organization then Watchtower's servants view that person in the same way a KKK member views a Black man. He is below their level, and there is nothing he can say or do except kiss back up to WT authority again to redeem himself. And even then they will make sure he pays a price for his misbehavior. If they perceive he is not going to miss back up to WT authority, then to them he is the equivalent of a Black man at a KKK cross lighting ceremony. He has no rights, and he is viewed as cursed by God and a follower of Satan.

One problem with the elders is that even the ones that are not that sort of bigot will allow that bigotry from the other elders to continue, and they do nothing to stop. Probably reacting, or rather failing to react, out of fear for themselves. And an even deeper problem with elders is they, like other Witnesses, have bought into the WT hype.

Factually WT couldn't interpret the Bible if you gave them six hundred and sixty six Bible concordances and a magnifying glass. WT just doesn't have the ability to do that. That ability to see the TRUTH and understand it has to be given from above. And that ability was never given WT. Therefore, WT chose to depend on hype. It always has, since the beginning. That's the reason so much of WT's teaching over the years has centered on WT, the organization, and who it has labeled God's anointed Jehovah's Witnesses. Either the authors of that hype were mentally deficient, or some had to know they were spreading hype. The only other explanation is that God actually spoke to them and told them to print that stuff about WT. But even WT admits that didn't happen. It was all fabricated. And along with the fabrication, which was dishonest enough, WT included direct lies.

Anyone who brings to the attention of others that a liar is a liar is a dangerous person to the accused. So if the elders there, any of them, knew any of the truths Eric might have shared they wouldn't have admitted it. And if they were too blind to understand what Eric would have shared they do understood this. That if they didn't disfellowship Eric, then their buttock was most likely going to be put through the ringer by someone above them. That is by WT, the ones who spread the hype.

• Reply by messenger on 2019-05-10 01:46:57

  misprint
  
  the word "miss" should read KISS

• Reply by MarthaMartha on 2019-05-10 05:44:55

  Well said, Messenger

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-05-10 05:41:10

Eric, Oh, if only brothers and sisters could see that video ! You have fought a fine fight with everything you have..truth.

How evasive can they be ! Strange private meeting, considering how the Israelite elders conducted matters at the city gates, while Matthew 18 and Paul's words to the Corinthians changed nothing in principle of the former ways - things should be dealt with openly and honestly. You made that point .

Looking at the bunch outside, I would have been in serious fear for my very health life had I gone in on my own.

Its a bad bad bad way of doing things.

Will Jesus correct these things in due time. He already has. It is in the Bible and the laws of the land. But they are both being ignored. So it is only JWs who can correct themselves. Will it happen ? Well it certainly hasn't yet.

You conducted yourself so well. I could not have kept so cool.
Even when the death sentence was involved, the Sanhedrin had to have someone speak up for the accused.
It is a Kangaroo court. Just about what I have seen with appeal committees too - how often do they overturn the original findings.

With many grateful thanks, you have taken a stand for all your fellow picketers, and done so extremely creditably.

Comment by lazarus on 2019-05-10 09:17:14

Ezekiel 34 Message Bible

When the Sheep Get Scattered
34 1-6 God’s Message came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherd-leaders of Israel. Yes, prophesy! Tell those shepherds, ‘God, the Master, says: Doom to you shepherds of Israel, feeding your own mouths! Aren’t shepherds supposed to feed sheep? You drink the milk, you make clothes from the wool, you roast the lambs, but you don’t feed the sheep. You don’t build up the weak ones, don’t heal the sick, don’t doctor the injured, don’t go after the strays, don’t look for the lost. You bully and badger them. And now they’re scattered every which way because there was no shepherd—scattered and easy pickings for wolves and coyotes. Scattered—my sheep!—exposed and vulnerable across mountains and hills. My sheep scattered all over the world, and no one out looking for them!

7-9 “‘Therefore, shepherds, listen to the Message of God: As sure as I am the living God—Decree of God, the Master—because my sheep have been turned into mere prey, into easy meals for wolves because you shepherds ignored them and only fed yourselves, listen to what God has to say:

10 “‘Watch out! I’m coming down on the shepherds and taking my sheep back. They’re fired as shepherds of my sheep. No more shepherds who just feed themselves! I’ll rescue my sheep from their greed. They’re not going to feed off my sheep any longer!

Comment by Jerome on 2019-05-10 14:38:24

Eric,
I am so very proud to see how you and your friends were able to keep your composure in the face of such an obvious miscarriage of justice. If this video enables even just one person to wake up and start to exercise their critical thinking skills, the experience will be well worth the stress gone through in order to produce it. On the one hand, it is sad that your disfellowshipping may now sever relationships with some close friends that desire to remain loyal to the organization. And for those that don’t know you, it will tarnish on your character and reputation and cause them to fear to listen to anything you have to say or watch any of your videos. But, on the other hand, our Lord informed us of the consequences of following him. (John 16:2,3) And for this we can rejoice. (Luke 6:22,23)
Other than reading articles on Beroean Pickets, something that helps me from time to time when I get to feeling depressed or question the wisdom of my course is to read the account of the blind man healed by Jesus in John chapter 9 along with comments from Albert Barnes.
Love to you my brother.
Stay strong
May Jehovah bless you.
Jerome

Comment by noblemindedthinker on 2019-05-10 15:44:01

"If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" - Matthew 6:23

Describes the JW organization perfectly. They think they have the light, but their "children" prove otherwise Luke 7:35.

Thank you for taking the time to create this video and shine the light on the Watchtower Organization

Comment by quibusdam on 2019-05-10 18:25:20

I don't know enough about the background of all this and can't keep up with the articles. But I have some criticism.

Eric, the lawyer's letter says that the Kingdom Hall had a blockaded parking lot and four guards. It says that your two companions were denied access and that you were advised to remove your jacket and forfeit your paper notes. I suggest a simple reason for all this: The WT legal department advised the elders that you might be looking for grounds to sue. The fact that you recorded them and got a lawyer confirms that their suspicions were right.

The committee's grounds that you are "disrupting the unity of the congregation and undermining the confidence of the brother's in Jehovah's arrangement" is factual. You and I wouldn't call the denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses "Jehovah's arrangement", but their complaint is substantially true because your web sites and Youtubes consistently undermine confidence in Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least in their hierarchy. Why didn't you tell the committee that that is exactly what you are doing, and that you are doing it for Christ?

"The decision to disfellowship" does have "serious legal implications", as your lawyer says. But that is unfortunate; government should stay out of religion. Some churches have already changed their disfellowshipping rules because of lawsuits. Churches of Christ, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, and other churches have been sued over this. Every time a denomination gives in to government pressure, it becomes a little bit more like a state religion.

The worst part of the lawyer's letter is about your "successful online ministry", from which you get "support revenue". Most of your followers are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses, or former Witnesses, but you won't lose customers as a result of being disfellowshipped. They knew that they were risking being disfellowshipped by visiting your web sites even before you were disfellowshipped.

Eric, I think you should have either disassociated yourself or failed to appear at the committee meeting. But since you didn't, and since you were preparing for a lawsuit for damages, I hope you can inform us how much money the disfellowshipping will cost you, including how much you are making on your Youtubes.

• Reply by Chet on 2019-05-11 01:32:58

  If the elders involved had operated ethically, there would be no grounds for a suit. In the over thirty years that I was active, I saw plenty of committee actions and from about 1980 onward, it became obvious that the judicial process in the congregations had become something they did not want exposed to the glare of publicity. Procedures trod upon the most basic human rights of the defendants and actions were frequently arbitrary, or politically motivated.
  
  My personal opinion is that these arrangements deserve none of my respect. I would never write a letter of disassociation because that would be tantamount to legitimizing the farce of their “judicial” arrangement. The only value I place in good standing is that my relatives will not be harassed for choosing to associate with me.
  
  But there’s another element to this; a very important one. For persons baptized before the mid 1980s, we were not baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses. By the words spoken in the baptism talk, on the day of my baptism, I was baptized as a Non-Denominational Christian. This is very important there was no contract, implied or explicit, which stated I was a member of any organization other than being a Christian disciple of Jesus Christ. At the time of my baptism, I felt that Jehovah’s Witnesses were teaching faithfully to the Bible. I saw them as fellows in pursuing Christian goals, but I never, even in my teens, saw them as my leaders. My leader is one, the Christ.
  
  This means that I was free to accept, or to reject, what I read in the magazines and other literature. If a particular Watchtower said something with which I did not agree, I felt no obligation to attempt to place that particular issue in the door-to-door work. I held private reservations about articles and doctrinal teachings which I felt were in error. BTW, my mother, a Rutherford era Witness, looked at things the same way, in those days.
  
  IMHO, no one owes this organization the courtesy of formal disassociation and especially in the case of people who were never members. If you were baptized before the mid ‘80s, you had no membership agreement to honor. At that time, you were truly free to come or go as you wished because you were never a member in the first place. It was a very loose federation. Should the local congregation ever see fit to make an announcement regarding me, they can fully expect to be sued, both individually and as a collective whole, because they have no authority to say that I am no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to their current policies, I never was one in the first place.
  
  In my own case, after a particularly nasty case of meddling in my private life, I came to the conclusion that this had become an organization which operated in darkness and resisted having their internal policies and procedures subjected to scrutiny. They were about as transparent as an organized crime operation.
  
  Eric brings out a very good point in his video regarding A Snare and a Racket. Jehovah’s Witnesses have employed judicial actions as a way to intimidate and control. If someone falls victim to a judicial action which is not scriptural or just, they are to be shunned. If friends and relatives continue to associate with such a person, they will likely be threatened with disfellowshipping if they continue such association. This amounts to coercion and intimidation. They are operating a racket and. IMO, deserve to come under the full force of the law for their practices. Recording one’s own conversations is legal, at least in the US. Eric was well within his rights.

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-11 03:11:31

    Chet,
    
    I was baptized before the eighties, and before the eighties it was understood by the WT organization and its individual members that all members baptized by Jehovah's Witnesses were part of that organization. That's the only reason elders and WT exercised authority over people. WT never attempted to exercise authority over anyone except baptized members, with the exception of also removing unbaptized publishers from that position if it saw fit.
    
    You can state how you viewed matters, but your personal opinion about that would not win you a court battle if you ever decide to engage in one over the issue of disfellowshipping. The court is what will decide if you win or lose.
    
    And I never read of a Witness winning a suit against WT for getting disfellowshipped. What I have read is that USA courts agree that an individual who joins an organization can be removed by that organization upon the decision of the organization. I don't know what the law is in other countries, but in the United States that's how I understand the law is interpreted. I have read that Jehovah's Witnesses lost suits that were filed because they were disfellowshipped.
    
    And again as for membership within the organization I was never around Witnesses who shared your opinion that those baptized before the eighties were not members of the organization. We all claimed to be Jehovah's Witnesses. And if WT did not consider individuals members back then it would not have been disfellowshipping people, which it started in the fifties. You can not get kicked out of an organization you don't belong to. Nor can you get disciplined by an organization you don't belong to. Unless you are there as a captured prisoner. But we weren't, we joined it.
    
    The wording in the baptism talk probably did change because of the lawsuits. But the reason was to make it even easier for WT to win disfellowshipping cases that are filed. At least that's what appears to be so in the USA. Because I am not aware of them losing any case against people who were baptized under the old baptism language, are you?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-11 07:20:20

      "You can not get kicked out of an organization you don't belong to." Agreed, and that goes to the heart of my argument. I left 4 years ago, and am not a member, even by their published policy, so by what right do they disfellowship me in an attempt to cut me off from all JWs around the world?

    • Reply by Chet on 2019-05-11 09:43:48

      It was very distinctly stated at the time of my baptism that I was being baptized as a Non-Denominational Christian. There was no membership implied and this was the position of the Society at that time.
      
      They began to change this policy in the eighties because their disfellowshipping policies were not legally defensible.
      
      There was a time when I would state that I was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I never thought of that as stating I was a member of any organization. At that time, I understood Isaiah 43:10 to apply to my preaching work and I used the term Jehovah’s Witness in a literal sense. I was bearing witness to my Creator.
      
      For the record, I no longer hold to that understanding of Isaiah 43:10, which I now believe applies to literal Israel as a witness to God’s deliverance.
      
      I was never a member of a religious organization, nor have I ever believed that I was. I have never been a member of the “Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses” and there is no record, written or by public act, which would support the idea that I was. Had I stood in a public assembly and affirmatively answered a question as to whether I was identified as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that would be a different matter, but I have never done so, nor will I ever do so in the future.
      
      There is a huge difference. Let me illustrate. A member of the U.S. Army has to go where they are sent. They might have a quiet desk job in a pleasant and peaceful place, but if they are deployed to a war zone, they are obligated to go, or face prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. OTOH, a civilian working for the Army can refuse an assignment without fear of prosecution. One person is a member, the other is an employee and retains the right to leave at will.
      
      At the time of my baptism, there was no Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The local congregation acted autonomously. We built a Kingdom Hall and voluntarily participated in the activities sanctioned by the Watchtower Society. The Kingdom Hall was owned by the congregation and we were free to sell it and disperse, if we so chose. We were free to hold meetings as we saw fit and, for that matter, we were free to teach as we saw fit. In the aftermath of 1980, the Society began to insist on greater control and instituted the arrangements now in place.
      
      I never consented to these changes and they have no agreement with me stating that I have placed myself under their authority. I still bear witness to my God and to His Son, but I have never been a member of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If they were to announce that I was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that would be a lie. They would be stating that I had, at one time, been a member, and that is not the case. I no longer participate in ANY of their organized activities and they have zero basis to claim that I am in any way, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Should they ever choose to challenge this, I will do everything legally within my power to defend my rights in this matter. They can’t hold me to a contract I have never signed.

  • Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-05-11 04:18:28

    Chet and Messenger, fine comments. Messenger is correct, but Chet, you reflect how we all felt. When I got baptised in the 1970s, it was put to me "What have you got to lose". Little did I know. All I wanted was to be guided by God and his word through what I thought was Jehovah and Jesus Christ's arrangement. Only when the 1981 Watchtower articles on disfellowshipping came out, did I really find out what JWs position was. It had not been so tough in the years before. If a person sinned, they sinned, and were disfellowshipped. I just thought, well stop sinning and return.
    I certainly did not understand that the issues connected with Ray Franz had resulted in the control articles of 1981 and later. I accepted what I was told.
    It has only been with the Internet that I have come to examine all the support evidence for disfellowshipping. I was stupid enough to accept what I was told. After all this was God's organisation, was it not ?
    It seems a high price to pay for being misled, and falling for it all.
    Messenger, your comments are true, which just shows what sort of Organisation we are talking about.
    God bless to all here.

  • Reply by quibusdam on 2019-05-12 21:01:48

    Chet, I am trying to reply a little to people who responded to me. When I was a teenager, I attended meetings in 1968 and 1969 in a small congregation. Several people were disfellowshipped during that short time. My family moved to another state. People were regularly disfellowshipped there, too. I was baptized in 1971 I agreed to whatever questions were asked (from the "Lamp" book, I think). I was nervous because even as a teenager I rejected WT typologies. I was afraid I would be asked if I agreed with EVERYTHING. But it didn't happen. And I was baptized. During the early 70's, when certain young people were baptized, my friends and I would observe that "now they can be disfellowshipped." Everybody who became a Witness then knew that JW's are a disfellowshipping religion. The local elders couldn't ignore my rejections of doctrines when I wrote several disrespectful letters to the Writing Department at Bethel. Day after day, year after year, I awaited being summoned to a committee meeting. If I had been wiser, I would have disassociated myself from a religion I no longer believed it. Or I would have not showed up. But I attended because I was crazy and still though that Jehovah was going to reform the organization.
    
    I notice that "messenger" tries to inform himself on relevant laws. Most commenters don't. Many websites discuss disfellowhipping in different churches and lawsuits. Here is a link to one:
    
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-how-to-resign-from-a-church-whether-or-not-you-are-under-church-discipline/

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-11 08:44:54

  quibusdam, I never got the chance to tell the committee exactly what I've been doing. As you saw, I never met with them for the reasons I outlined in the video. Additionally, I only found out the reason for the disfellowshipping over the phone. They were not interested in that point about my reasons, nor was I prepared to discuss them over the phone. It is so easy to armchair quarterback things like this, but in the heat of the moment, one does the best one can. I don't have followers, I have viewers. A very important distinction and I'd appreciate it if you were to recognize that as I don't want to start a new religion. I disagree that government should stay out of religion. There should not be a segment of society that is exempt from God's arrangement as outlined in Romans 13:1-7. Otherwise, who can you protect the individual. Religion is just another form of human government, men dominating men to their injury. (Ec 8:9)
  
  I do take strong exception to the suggestion that I should disassociate myself. That would mean I'm supporting a wicked unscriptural practice. As for the suggestion I not appear before the committee, I'm wondering if you really viewed the video, because I clearly expounded on my reasons for appearing before them.
  
  I make nothing on my YouTube videos. Zero! Zilch! Nada! Did you see any advertisements when you watched the video? Again, did you watch the video?

  • Reply by quibusdam on 2019-05-12 21:35:17

    I don't have much time, but I thought I should respond at least a little.
    
    I only watched a part of one or two videos because of lack of time. I tried to cover that by my first words: "I don’t know enough about the background of all this and can’t keep up with the articles..." I will try to watch them thoroughly when I can.
    
    I am glad to learn that you don't make money on the Youtubes. You have explained in the past that you make little or nothing on the web site. That is why I was surprised at the wording of the lawyer's letter. I don't think I misread the letter, but if others don't react the way I did, it will mean that I have poor reading comprehension.
    
    You said, "but in the heat of the moment, one does the best one can." I have done many things in the heat of the moment that I regret. So if I were to ever read on your web site that you made a mistake in how you handled something, I would think more of you, not less. In the heat on the moment, when I was before a committee, my teeth chattered from fear.
    
    You say that disassociation is wicked. If you have an article on this, and I find it, I will read it. But many web sites that discuss church discipline say that people SHOULD resign from churches. They usually say, based on U.S. law, that if a church mistreats you AFTER you resign from the church, you can sue. Regardless of the law, I regard becoming a JW as my own mistake. When I realized that the denomination was not The Truth, it was incumbent on me to leave at that time and not look back, or else write a letter of disassociation.
    
    You wrote "There should not be a segment of society that is exempt from God’s arrangement as outlined in Romans 13:1-7." The reality is that church discipline in the USA has usually been exempt from the courts of "the higher powers" or "superior authorities". That changes when you resign from a church. One famous court case hinged on whether a resignation was properly made:
    
    https://newsok.com/article/2061322/390000-awarded-in-church-lawsuit
    
    I didn't think you were starting a religion. But I don't think it makes sense for your lawyer to demand your reinstatement into a religion you don't believe in. What would you do if you were reinstated? Attend meetings? Support the Watchtower? I don't think so.

Comment by Alithia on 2019-05-11 09:50:01

Hello Quibusdam and all.

Quib I have some criticism of your criticism of the way Eric has gone about dealing with the “invitation” to attend a judicial hearing around what appears to be accusations of apostasy. I am not necessarily endorsing Eric’s strategy, however;

Firstly I fail to see how you so casually and easily reconcile having 6 or more burly “guards” at the entrances, key only access to the kingdom hall, and 2 very large vans blockading the entrance to the kingdom hall?

I would consider this to be more than sufficient to prevent a regular news channel van and crew, a determined group of paparazzi and the battle hordes from “Middle Earth” accessing/storming the kingdom hall.

I have only seen pictures of Eric, and he appears to be tall, but unless Eric was “packing, strapped or had heat” (We can watch the American police shows in Australia) most people familiar with the circumstances find this extraordinary to a very high degree to say the least and indicative of the tremendous insecurities and very low levels of emotional, spiritual and mental state of the architects, and of the willing participants in this arrangement.

Does this strike you as the actions of people who are centred in reality? Would you have considered the lengths that these people went to? What was proposed was essentially only a conversation for goodness sakes!

You mentioned that they were afraid that Eric may sue legally. Have you given any thought as to how the security measures could negate or limit their liability in any way? The fact that Eric recorded them also means nothing at all. Unless it is illegal to record a conversation then there is nothing wrong with that. In certain States of Australia it is illegal to record a conversation if it is a commercial transaction, on the phone, or the conversation of others; however I believe in most States recording a personal conversation is perfectly O.K. We record the pictures of our loved ones and record their voices too. Don’t get too sinister about things brother Quib. If Eric had a pen that shot a tiny steel ball containing plutonium then you may have had a point.

But some people definitely have a bee under the bonnet.

You only have to look over your shoulder as they say, if you are doing the wrong thing, or planning to, that is going to get you in trouble.

Like violating a person’s human rights, making unsubstantiated accusations, denying the accused the right to a defence, denying the right to question the veracity of the accusations, denying the right to the knowledge of the procedural arrangements, generally conducting a farcical judicial affair or acting and saying things that are reprehensible. Nothing that our dear “brothers” could be suspected or accused of course, but Quib you seem not to consider any of these, (And I could easily lengthen the list), in your list of accusations that might moderate your opinion of the way in which Eric has enacted?

Regarding this, I do agree with you on this one point. The “brothers” were and are a suspicious lot!!!

I also have to take issue with your comment about what you call as “factual and substantially true”. You say that “you do not consider the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ to be God's arrangement”. Yet your next statements could only make any sense, if you believe they are, or if indeed they are Gods arrangement! Undermining the brother’s confidence in Jehovah’s arrangements, in the hierarchy???? Really Quib???

Let’s get this right Quib, there is more reason, reality, honesty, truth, validity and integrity that can be found at a Trekkie convention than there was going to be at Eric’s judicial hearing, slash oops only shepherding meet-up, oops I am not really sure to be sure say the “guards”.

See the definition regarding the Star War fan base given below.

A Trekkie is the fan that has lost touch with reality. A Trekker enjoys being a fan, but still has both feet on the ground here in the real world. As Star Trek star Kate Mulgrew says in the movie Trekkies, Trekkers are the ones that are “walking among us”

You see Quib the “brothers” are Trekkies. To use an apropos expression, I also was "once upon a time" a Trekkie too. A trekker can take off his Darth Vader suit at the end of the day and go back to his day job and tell everyone about the fun he had that day. Unfortunately the Trekkie is not like that. Like the brothers in the VDO they actually have been deluded to think they have special powers, authority, understandings and duties to perform that are illusions only in their own mind! As is the “hierarchy” and the “Org” and everything that is unique about it including Eric’s charges of apostasy.

So what obligation does Eric have to completely square up to these guys? Unless he wants to join in the fun and pretend too, then that his business. He has no obligation to do so in the circumstances. You can see from the very beginning of the VDO there is no truth in any of them that of course would extend into the meeting room inside. JW Elders, Shepherd Book, C.O, Branch Reps, Headquarters, all of the former are just “Trekkie” type characters, props and story lines that are meaningless and laughable except that we got caught up in it and would like to extract ourselves in the least painful way. So how can you use this (A fairy tale) as a basis to criticise any one???

With regards to legal implications I was brought up to believe that JWs ignore retaliatory or malicious actions because it always backfires on the opposes. We were told for decades Jehovah sees to it like Hamman who prepared the gallows for Mordecai. It appears they have changed tune lately. Is it perhaps that God was never with them or has even decided to punish them using his ministers the “superior authorities”? If that is the case I don’t think I would like to side with them and get off side with Jehovah.

And again I take issue with the only options you think Eric should have availed himself of. Disassociate or just let it slide and get Dd. Again this can only make any sense if you believe in JW theology, can’t have it both ways it is a self-defeating argument.

You also mention religion should stay out of politics???? On this point there is something called the kingdom of God that will smash all other governments to bits, that’s politics. This is when this government will then be intertwined in every aspect of people’s lives. Have you noticed Daniel and his three companions and how God used them? The list is very long of people God put in political positions in the scriptures.

Please read 1 Timothy 2:1-2. I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Brother Quib I am not advocating you reach out for political office however at the least you may want to involve yourself to the degree that you know what they are doing in office at and pray in a positive way for them.

However I do appreciate you bringing to the attention of all Quib, the suggestion that Eric could be amassing a fortune from his VDOs and the like. Possibly picking up major sponsors along the way like, Warner Bros or Walt Disney Studios.

I can just picture Eric now, reading this stuff, lounging on a beach on the Maldives, or dreaming about the Lamborghini he will purchase! Well if it is true then if I am in Canada any time I would like the keys to the Lambo for a couple of hours only Eric. I imagine it should be electric blue if you need help choosing a colour.

Bye from Alithia to Quibusdam and love to all.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-11 12:18:41

  OOh, Electric blue! My favorite. But no one drives the Lambo, but me. Sorry, I can be a little selfish. Well, maybe only for an hour or two. ???

• Reply by Helanren on 2019-05-12 07:18:08

  The YouTube videos don't even have adds, so some major sponsors would certainly solve the revenue problem. ? But, like you said in another comment, mentioning material loss arouses the interest of the courts. Btw, I haven't commended you yet, Eric! I hope I will be as calm as you when my time to defend Christ has come (I still live at home, so I'm looking for a suitable moment. I still hope that I can wake up my parents, but that will be very hard, if not impossible...). Thanks for everything you have done until know, and will be doing in the future! ☺

• Reply by quibusdam on 2019-05-12 20:41:22

  I don't have much time, but I thought I should reply at least a little to the people who addressed comments to me. If you read what I wrote again, I think you will see that I said that I wanted politics out of religion, not religion out of politics. The morality of the Western world is changing, for example, a growing number of people believe that alcoholics are sick people who need treatment, not sinners and that sex acts prohibited by the Bible aren't sin. A state-run church will prevent churches from declaring legal acts as sins. As I remember, the letter from Eric's lawyer demanded that he be reinstated. What if all sinners had a legal right to be reinstated to a denomination that didn't want them? What if people who have rejected the teachings of a church (like Eric) had the legal right to be reinstated? We are headed in that direction because of many lawsuits affecting many denominations and because of the changing morality of the Western world. If we get to that point, I will have to put up with it, but I will not like it.
  
  JWSurvey published video of a governing body member. I thought it was an invasion of privacy, and I wouldn't want it to happen to me. But I looked up laws on such things and it appears that it was legal in New Jersey to film and record another person in a public place without his knowledge, and also legal to publish the video without his consent. I concluded that the same thing could happen to me and I couldn't do anything about it.
  
  I don't have time to respond to everything you said. But I will add this: Like many people on anti-JW web sites, you ignore what is happening in other churches. Lots of churches disfellowship. They sometimes get successfully sued. Here is a link to one such web site if you are interested in what other churches are going through:
  
  http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-to-leave-church.html

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-13 00:09:23

    quibusdam,
    
    I went to your link site and didn't see any cases cited on that page showing where anyone in any church sued and won for being ex-communicated. Did I miss something with my quick read? Or is your claim that those cases exist just a statement with no evidence backing it?
    
    Your link did state this, "While many churches have a clear notion of leaving the church others don't really recognize this. Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses can have problems leaving a church without being excommunicated (disfellowshipped)."

    • Reply by quibusdam on 2019-05-14 01:22:38

      Hi, messenger. I think that most people who visit web sites like this think only in terms of Jehovah's Witnesses. The courts are accustomed to church-discipline lawsuits arising from many denominations. I hoped that some people would read web sites like the one I linked to see that Witnesses are in the same boat as a lot of other denominations. Read the paragraph that preceded my link again. The web site I linked to is large, and there is a link called "apostasy" on the left column.
      
      Here is a famous case, Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville:
      
      https://newsok.com/article/2061322/390000-awarded-in-church-lawsuit
      
      There is another famous case of a woman who successfully sued a church for being disfellowshipped for fornication, but I can't find it now. She and her boyfriend told the church verbally that she was quitting the church. The church elders didn't think that the verbal statements were adequate. They disfellowshipped her and announced the reason for it. The court decided that the verbal statements were enough. If the court thought she was still a member of the church, they wouldn't have intervened. Whenever I find the case I will try to give you a link.

    • Reply by quibusdam on 2019-05-14 10:55:27

      HI, messenger. I can't find some cases I've read about and will not be visiting this web site for a few days. But you may be interested the court cases mentioned here:
      
      https://www.mormonmatters.org/is-wrongful-excommunication-legally-redressable/
      
      The footnotes mention some Witness court cases.
      
      This Mennonite case concerned shunning:
      
      https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1975/462-pa-330-0.html
      
      Some Witness court cases are mentioned online. This case concerns the decision to treat disassociated people like disfellowshipped people, publicized in the September 15, 1981, Watchtower.
      
      https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/819/875/245063/
      
      Norman Hancock resigned from the Mormon Church, but was excommunicated anyway. Supposedly the Mormon Church settled the case for a large amount of money to keep it out of court.
      
      https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1127964,1127964
      
      I have been on the internet too much. Even if I made a big mistake I won't be back for a few days.

Comment by Justin Michesloff on 2019-05-11 12:22:19

Eric,

I couldn't help but think of you when I saw this out of the July 2019 WT Study article "Prepare Now for Persecution" under the subheading "How To Cope With Hatred From Men":

"Jesus was not saying that Christians would enjoy being hated. Instead, he was being realistic. We are no part of the world. We live according to Jesus’ teachings and preach the message that he preached. As a result, the world hates us. (Read John 15:18-21.) We want to please Jehovah. If men hate us because we love our Father, that is their problem.

Never allow anything that mere humans say or do to make you feel ashamed of being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Mic. 4:5) We can learn to cope with fear of man by considering the example set by the apostles in Jerusalem just after Jesus was put to death. They knew how much the Jewish religious leaders hated them. (Acts 5:17, 18, 27, 28) Yet, every day they continued to go to the temple and publicly identify themselves as disciples of Jesus. (Acts 5:42) They refused to cower in fear. We too can defeat our own fear of man by regularly and publicly identifying ourselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses​—at work, at school, and in our neighborhood.​—Acts 4:29; Rom. 1:16."

My question with your Kangaroo Court case is; Who are the HATERS who mistreat others for doing Jehovah's will AS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE? Who in this case is acting like a true witness of Jehovah (Jehovah's Witness) and who is acting like the Jewish religious leaders.

It seems that if the .org is going to start hunting down faders, we ALL should be preparing for persecution.

The apostle Peter later wrote: “Even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy.”

Thank you for allowing us to share in your happiness.

Peace and Grace

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-11 13:47:26

  ❤??

Comment by messenger on 2019-05-11 14:59:37

Chet and Eric,

My previous comment centered on how courts in the USA have ruled on the matter of disfellowshipping by WT (to the best of my knowledge); how most Jehovah's Witnesses view this matter of who can be disfellowshipped ; and how the WT organization viewed the matter in the 1950's thru this present day.

I was baptized as an adult in August of 1976. I started studying a bit over a year before that. It wasn't because of the 1975 hype. I didn't know about that until I read about it in a WT. And I believe I read about that around 1980.

Because my grandparents were JW's (my grandfather an elder; my pioneer aunt's family JW's) I began attending the Hall right away, as I had moved in with my grandparents, who lived next door to my aunt. My pioneer aunt started the study with me. Also her daughter's, my cousin's husband was a young elder in that congregation, and his mother was a pioneer.

The perception of a child brought up in the truth might be different, but I wasn't a child. I was 22 years old. I had lived on my own since the age of 18, had taken care of myself since then, and had done quite a lot of traveling as a professional musician. Including about eight trips overseas and living on the opposite coast away from my family for over half a year.

The organization back then in South Central Los Angeles, which was a predominantly African American Community (at least 90%) was more controlling than in White communities TODAY. When I left that congregation and moved to integrated congregations that primarily consisted of Caucasians, those congregations were as controlling as congregations are today. Do some rules change at times? Yes. But the idea that EVERYONE follows WT and the elders has been taught in Kingdom Halls as long as I have attended.

What Chet said about WT baptizing him as a non-denominational Christian would have to have happened a really long time ago, and certainly before I was baptized; or it happened by some offshoot group of Jehovah's Witnesses that other JWs would consider an apostate group. And I have heard of some of those. WT language at baptism talks from 1975 on definitely did not state they were performing nondenominational baptisms. And if members after I was baptized attended other churches to worship, nondenominational or otherwise, they would be disfellowshipped. JWS were allowed to attend funeral services in other churches, but that's all. And that threat to be excommunicated if you worship in other churches has been going on as long as I've been baptized.

Like Eric and Chet I no longer consider myself a Jehovah's Witness, because I view WT as apostate. I don't judge those attending as all apostate. And I know some who attend until they die will live again in the New World.

Christ attended meetings in an apostate religion while he didn't teach apostasy. It got him killed. And that will most likely get us killed in a figurative way if we do the same thing.

I suggest researching to see if any Jehovah's Witness has won a lawsuit against WT after they filed a complaint for being disfellowshipped. My previous comment, as well as this one, has nothing to do with what should be. Both comments speak to how I view the reality of the situation of a Jehovah's Witness who is still inside the organization (that is how WT and the courts might view it, not how I view myself ) , and the reality of his position if he gets disfellowshipped as an inactive member.

I am not saying I know a court case cannot be won. I don't know. But from the little I have read up on Jehovah's Witnesses suing WT because they were disfellowshipped it's my belief that if a court case is won by a plaintiff on those grounds it will be a president setting case. As I have not heard of it.

I hope to see all of you in the New World. We might look each other up there. How about using your psydonyms there on the Internet for identification purposes.

• Reply by messenger on 2019-05-11 15:18:30

  Correction.
  
  President should say precedent

Comment by Psalmbee on 2019-05-11 15:29:32

For the record:

MVEW did exactly what any "true hearted" disciple of Christ would have done, Go stand trial and face the veil of charges presented against him. (Is 41:10 and 13).

I said it before down below, MVEW showed no fear, he was not hiding himself like some here have suggested doing. People forget they are hiding, Eric did not hide, so therefore had nothing to forget.

Five stars across each shoulder is what he walked in with and walked out with two more, one at the end of his left collar and one on his Right! (Heb 3:1and2)**



Psalmbee

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-11 15:37:01

  ?

• Reply by messenger on 2019-05-11 19:40:08

  Some here might be hiding Psalmbee. I don't know. But not to comply with a WT summons to attend a judicial hearing is not hiding. I do know some here have stated that is what they would have done. Others said they would never write a disassociation letter. And why would that be hiding either?
  
  I live in the USA. If the Chinese government ordered me to do something, while I was never in China, then I would not feel compelled to do it, while not believing I was hiding. If we as Jehovah's Witnesses, that is if we continue to be recognized as Jehovah's Witnesses by others, and that organization summons us to do something, we are not hiding if we no longer consider their authority over us because we have left them even before that summons.
  
  But Psalmbee I do believe your point is important if someone is hiding. Not hiding that they no longer believe in WT, but hiding the TRUTH that they know. Because hiding the TRUTH is denying Christ. It's my belief that a Witness who is WOKE and an active Jehovah's Witness is walking a very dangerous tightrope. Christ never authorized us to use deception for the purpose of being in a religious ORGANIZATION to help other people.
  
  Not saying everything we believe is one thing. Getting on a Watchtower stage and spouting off WT teachings that we believe are inaccurate is something quite different. From other sites I have learned some servants of WT stay in their positions to share WT documents with websites or make attempts to wake up members. A tricky situation as it might not be possible to do that and appropriately serve Christ if you are a WT servant expected to teach WT's message (especially since elders will readily remove you from any position if you don't). I wouldn't do it, as I only work for Christ. If those are the ones you refer to as hiding Psalmbee you have a point. And a good one as that is most likely a dangerous position to be in.

  • Reply by Helanren on 2019-05-14 09:28:13

    It could also be that those insiders have an atheistic worldview at the moment. If so, it wouldn't be a tricky situation for them. But indeed, if you are an awoken Christian, it is a dangerous situation.

    • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-15 21:53:18

      Helanren,
      
      You have a valid point. And I am quite sure a correct one. From interacting with others on another site I found some ex-WT elders who became atheists. And they were not disfellowshipped first. They walked away because they lost faith. So there also must be current WT elders that are atheists. If I found some, there have to be more.
      
      Jehovah is grooming all of us for the future. Part of learning what God wants us to learn, is learning how to deal with all situations in HIS way. We are learning from every experience. Our exposure to everything including WT is/was part of that process. As the scripture states God will make all of our experiences work (in the long run) for our good. PART OF OUR GOOD IS UNDERSTANDING. Not only will we know what we believe and what our motivations are, we will also understand how others think, and fully grasp why some are saved and others cannot be saved.
      
      WT is apostate. As an apostate it willingly or in ignorance works against Christ's message. If you are here you probably realize that already. And if you don't, God might have you on a path to eventually see that. Once you see it, it's very clear. Because WT teachings are illogical, and God is not. Eventually everyone who lives forever will see that.

Comment by messenger on 2019-05-12 00:59:20

I JUST POSTED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON JWSURVEY. IF I GET A RESPONSE I'LL POST IT HERE. The owner of JWfacts has done nice research also. I have never posted on his site. But if any of you have it might be advantageous to ask him the same questions. One of the researchers and primary article writers on JWSurvey is now being threatened with the exact same thing Eric was. Like Eric he has not attended a Kingdom Hall for 4 years, nor has he been in contact with their members.

Here is my post on JWSurvey. I sent it off a few minute ago:

A couple questions:

1. Has anyone out there ever read of a lawsuit succeeding, in any country, that any JW or ex-JW brought against WT on the grounds that they were disfellowshipped?

2. Has anyone out there ever read of a court case that was initiated by an INACTIVE JW against WT because they were disfellowshipped? And if so do you know the result?

Based on current WT actions answers to those questions become important to have.

• Reply by Alithia on 2019-05-12 05:18:07

  Hello Messenger, I am not sure exactly what the point is regarding your questions. Are they because you think it is a waste of time to threaten legal action, and so one should just accept the inevitable outcomes?
  
  It may be good to review the 4 hour Canada full court trial of Wall versus the congregation that disfellowshipped him. It failed because of the action taken by Mr Wall. His reason was that he was denied a proper judicial review and procedural fairness regarding his judicial case.
  
  Not a wise approach I think. Watching his defence he was shot down in the first 5 minutes by the judges when he was outlining his case.
  
  The court found not in his favour regarding those reasons. To use the legal jargon his reasons were not found to be justiciable. Or warrant the interest of the courts to make a ruling on what they consider to be only religious procedures and belief systems. They did not consider this to be their domain. Only of it is public, not private as in a religious group.
  
  Of course the lawyer for JWs lied his pants off around the consequences of Mr Wall being disfellowshipped. And Randy making an informed voluntary agreement to be party to all of the Orgs belief system, and that the Org does not have rules, regulations but rather only beliefs! Including the transparency of their JW judicial system.
  
  I think Eric is taking another tack around human rights, defamation and material loss. Things which automatically justify the courts to have an interest to adjudicate on matters if they pass the test of sufficient importance.
  
  And even if there is no win in court, the hope is one day there will be and then a precedent is set after which the floodgates can be opened up for thousands of others to follow with legal suits that can provide restitution for the victims and harm the Org where it hurts the most, in their pockets and in the news media. For example due to the ARC in Australia some precedents and recommendations have been made that has sparked a number of class actions against the Org. This is good news.
  
  It really is a David and Goliath thing here but the victory can often be so sweet if there is some good representation and a court judiciary that is ready to listen . Not to mention quite a bit of money and grit.
  
  Over in some Eastern European countries, I think Finland, it is already happening where the Orgs Judicial system and its effects are being challenged legally.
  
  Help me out Messenger, you and a few others have talked about this matter, can you state in a few sentences your thoughts about the whole take legal action thing or am I missing the point?
  
  Alithia love to all.

  • Reply by Chet on 2019-05-12 09:55:51

    Every generation of reply becomes narrower, which becomes impractical for comments beyond a sentence or two, so I’ll respond to Alithia’s comment with a fresh post.
    
    
    That’s exactly the point. Considering the many changes in disfellowshipping announcements, I’m certain that the org has lost suits over this matter, and likely on many occasions. There’s a lot of gray area here, because defining what it means to belong to the JWs is like nailing Jello to a wall.
    
    My contention, based upon the wording I’ve heard in numerous baptism talks previous to 1985, is that none of us baptized in that time period were actually members. I attended meetings for many years, in 11 congregations and many, many times I heard the phrase that no one actually joined JWs. We were non-denominational Christians. The Awake magazines had a blurb on the second page claiming to be non-denominational. Witnesses, including the parent organization, did not consider themselves to be a denomination.
    
    This worked for many years, but after some at Bethel began awakening in the late ‘70s, they realized that they couldn’t enforce the beliefs of non-denominational Christians. This was almost certainly due to a person disfellowshipped for apostasy suing them successfully.
    
    It is entirely possible that a case like Eric’s could set a precedent which would have a snowball effect and free numerous people from their clutches. It has occurred to me that establishing a common legal strategy might be the key to accomplishing this.
    
    It all reduces to the meaning of being “one of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. When I was baptized, that meant that you agreed with their interpretation of scripture, attended meetings with others whom held the same viewpoint and preached utilizing Watchtower publications. There was no agreement that such a person had to accept any future change in Watchtower teaching.
    
    The rules changed in 1985 and, sadly, persons baptized thereafter are bound to the Organization in a manner which didn’t exist when I was baptized. The JW Organization would like to apply this ex post facto, but I never made any new agreement with them. My interest in this group of people was predicated solely on the self evident truth of the hope of a restored earth, the mortal nature of humanity and the Unitarian nature of the Creator. I was never all that concerned with the Adventist notions of trying to discover the date of Christ’s return. I accepted these ideas, because at the time I felt the Watchtower to be reliable, but it was never a cornerstone of my faith.
    
    This was a fairly common viewpoint among Witnesses until the Elder Arrangement was announced in 1971 and subsequently enacted in September of 1972. At that time, people began to talk about the Organization and, in many cases, used glowing terms of praise. IMHO, this is when the Organization changed direction and became more controlling, more involved in the private lives of adherents and eventually became what it is today: certainly nothing I would have EVER been willing to join.
    
    I think that for people baptized pre 1985, it’s pretty much open and shut. They changed the terms of fellowship and I never agreed to these new terms. In terms of such persons, the claim of apostasy is invalid. We never agreed to follow them and certainly never agreed to follow future changes they might make.
    
    In the case of anyone, does “Fading” exempt them from judicial action. I would opine that it does, but with one powerful caveat: such a fader should not attend any congregation meeting. If you show up once a year for Memorial, they could argue that you are still in fellowship with them. My advice to such folks is to buy your own matzah and wine and to never set foot at the KH.
    
    There are two things which could cause meaningful hinderance to the JW Organization, financial harm and negative publicity. I suspect that they are on the ropes financially, due to the fact that they are selling KHs. A few more high profile abuse cases with large judgments could imperil even their vaunted Warwick property.
    
    Negative publicity probably will reduce the number of people willing to join anew and may help existing members to find the courage needed to leave. Footage of elders behaving badly is very valuable. Eric’s contribution, with regard to this, is invaluable. Never have I seen a more blatant display of both cowardice and arrogance. The fact that the appeal committee members refused to even come to the door speaks volumes. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Organization is aware of Meleti Vivlon and wants him silenced.

    • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-12 14:41:08

      Chet the very very early teaching of WT was that it was non-denominational. That was way back when Russel was alive.
      
      Any other verbal reference to denominations by WT is only because sanctimonious WT believes the only Christians acceptable to Christ are active Jehovah's Witnesses. So, you heard them using the term Christian denominations in the same way WT uses the term Christendom. In other words it meant apostate Christian organizations.
      
      But if Jehovah's Witnesses are not legally a denomination no church group is. A law court is not going to interpret denomination in the same bull-crap way WT spun it to you. Law courts are only interested in facts, not spin and opinions. And as the Wall case in Canada shows that court accepted WT, The Christian Congregation Of Jehovah's Witnesses, or whatever other name those folks want to call themselves as a religious group, engaging in religious procedures, teaching religious policies and doctrines. That court recognized WT in that way, which harmonizes with how people interpret the term denomination.
      
      Here's Wikipedia:
      
      "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity"

    • Reply by Alithia on 2019-05-12 15:55:17

      Thank Chet beautifully written and expressed I get it now and agree with all you say.
      
      Thanks from Alithia.

    • Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-13 07:48:36

      Hey Chet, very interesting observations and history knowledge. Appreciate your insights... Maybe, just maybe a few more paragraphs, and if possible, a little shorter???

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-12 13:56:57

    Alithia, of course you understand the point of my inquiries. The point is to win as stated in the questions.
    
    As for the Wall case, you say he lost in the first 5 minutes based on his cause of action (which was he didn't receive a fair trial)? Well that cause of action Wall had is listed in Eric's lawyer's letter as Eric's position. And since that position has already been litigated and defeated in Canada, precedent has been set for bringing a case against WT on those grounds. No doubt WT's attorney will cite that precedent, and also the position of Eric revealed in that letter.
    
    Chet says he's sure many cases have been filed and won against WT for disfellowshipping members. But that's like saying, there is no God. Prove it. Chet's claim will mean nothing to a court, and no attorney would be foolish enough to make that claim without evidence. What cases Chet?
    
    As for the defamation of character, and Tortious interference causes of action listed in the lawyer's letter. If there have already been many other lawsuits filed against WT by JWs because they were disfellowshipped, as Chet suggests, then probably one or both of those causes of action has already been litigated; since defamation of character applies to ALL who have been disfellowshipped, and business dealings between Jehovah's Witnesses applies to many. So Alithia, now do you see the point of my inquiry? Suing for a noble cause is purposeful, but is that the primary intention of Eric? When I sue I sue to win. Otherwise, if I think I'll lose, like WT says, let Jehovah deal with it. Lawsuits cost not only a lot of money, but the ones I filed also took up a lot of my time because I was heavily involved in the process from beginning to end.
    
    If you go ahead Eric here are a couple sources that might help. One of the first WT attorney's was kicked out of Bethel by Rutherford. Rutherford then published defamatory statements about him in one of WT's magazines. The fellow sued WT in the United States and won on the grounds of defamation of character. Ray Franz cited the incident in one of his books. If you don't have those books, and want me to I'll look it up for you. There is another book that I read many years ago written by an ex-zone overseer, Bethelite, and pioneer. He titled his work, I Was A Watchtower Slave. He had a business selling religious books. Some of those books were the same ones WT sold. Most of this guy's list of customers consisted of Jehovah's Witnesses, and he had an active list of customers. In the book he claims WT demanded that he desist from selling books from his own company. When he refused WT disfellowshipped him or removed him from office, I can't remember which, and WT put the word out that Jehovah's Witnesses who were purchasing from him should stop. I don't think he sued. The fellow probably didn't have enough money to sue. But he might have sued, I can't remember for sure.
    
    
    Alithia to address your final inquiry about my take. To further what I said above here's how I see it. I believe it's very important to to get as much information as possible before a complaint is filed. I have dealt with several lawyers. Most talk a good game about why they take on a case in your behalf. But in the end it was obvious to me that their motivation was money. And because of that many of them, but not all, will work you as a client like they work the opposing party. I only lost one case, and that lawyer who was a contingent attorney, didn't follow my instructions while claiming he was and purposefully or stupidly tanked my case. In small claims court I represented myself a number of times and never lost.
    
    The law's tricky to people who have no experience with it. And the primary motivation of ALL lawyers is for THEM to get paid. If there have been wins on the side of plaintiffs who were disfellowshipped, especially if those wins happened in Canada, then Eric has a good case. If not I see it probably swinging the other way, for the same reason Wall lost. The decision by that court is the legal system does not rule on disciplinary matters within private organizations as long as those disciplinary matters don't violate state laws, and that a private organization can dismiss members. They might not have stated those words, but that was their finding.
    
    But like you say Alithia, there is hope. And if Eric succeeds precedent in Canada will have been set. And like you claimed, then the flood gates will be OPENED. Is it worth a shot for that reason? Maybe. If so, maybe Eric could put a go fund me link on his site, and take on a few advertisers to generate revenue. I read Barbara Anderson lost a case she filed because she got disfellowshipped , and that she was ordered to also pay WT's attorney fee. It could be costly. Remember the scripture in Revelation that said when the Dragon spewed water out its mouth to drown the Woman the Earth (World) came to her rescue. There is nothing wrong with using the world's assets as a defense against WT. Maybe the Revelation scripture applies.
    
    Love to you also Alithia!

    • Reply by Alithia on 2019-05-12 16:02:09

      I get what you mean now and I see clearly the points you make and how true you are about lawyers. Well the thing about law is that it is heavily based on precedent. But there are always landmark cases where precedent is overturned and there is change. So let's see if the Spirit leads there.
      
      Love from Althia to all.

• Reply by messenger on 2019-05-13 05:55:44

  My first reply from JWSurvey to those two questions. The answer came from an inactive JW who served many years as a JW elder:
  
  Big B says:
  May 12, 2019 at 9:06 pm
  Answer to #1: No. The Watchtower brings out their literature showing their procedures of handling misconduct and says that everyone knows their procedures before baptism. Thus the courts dismiss the charges brought by disfellowshipped ones.
  
  Answer to #2: No. I have never heard of such a case. Most inactive ones are left alone unless, of course, they promote “apostasy” then they may be disfellowshipped. However, I think the same thing would happen in the courts view as #1 above. Courts do not want to involve themselves in the inside workings of any religious organizations as a matter of course. In the U.S. it’s a separation of church and state.

• Reply by messenger on 2019-05-13 05:59:38

  First reply to those questions from Survey. Big B is inactive and has served as an elder for many years. He believes WT is the evil slave.
  
  Big B says:
  May 12, 2019 at 9:06 pm
  Answer to #1: No. The Watchtower brings out their literature showing their procedures of handling misconduct and says that everyone knows their procedures before baptism. Thus the courts dismiss the charges brought by disfellowshipped ones.
  
  Answer to #2: No. I have never heard of such a case. Most inactive ones are left alone unless, of course, they promote “apostasy” then they may be disfellowshipped. However, I think the same thing would happen in the courts view as #1 above. Courts do not want to involve themselves in the inside workings of any religious organizations as a matter of course. In the U.S. it’s a separation of church and state.

Comment by Chet on 2019-05-13 02:40:01

I mean no disrespect, Messenger, but I was present for my baptismal talk and you weren’t. I was baptized a number of years before you and attended meetings off and on from the mid 1950s. If you find a print copy of the Awake from the ‘70s, you will see that the magazine says that it’s non-denominational. Actually, I believe that persisted into the ‘80s or even the ‘90s. JWs didn’t consider themselves a religion well past the years of Rutherford, not to mention Russell.

• Reply by messenger on 2019-05-13 05:11:56

  Chet,
  
  The only thing that matters here, in what we're discussing, is the law. Or, are we just having a discussion about opinions?
  
  There are church groups that I know of right around my home that call themselves nondenominational. That claim won't get you a two dollar hot dog on a court house step. Inside a court room those so-called nondenominational churches will be recognized as having the same rights as the ones claiming a denomination. And guess what? WT will argue that it is a denomination in a court case, if it feels the claim is beneficial. WT has already argued in court that it is an organization possessing a religious hierarchy and clergy similar to the Catholic church. But it doesn't matter, as the name nondenominational has no bearing on these issues, legally. All churches are private groups that have a legal right to decide membership.
  
  
  I just finished watching one and a half hours of the Hall case on Youtube. The complete video is a bit over 3 hours, so that video might be the whole case, I don't know. But from what I have read from Alithia and others it appears to be the whole trial. And I believe this was Canada's Supreme Court. I'll check out the rest of that video later, since it's late here. If that supreme court agreed with all the arguments brought out by the WT lawyer and that string of lawyers that filed amicus briefs, as some commenter under the video suggested, then the issues addressed in the letter from Eric's lawyer were already adjudicated. The only difference that might affect Eric is that he is inactive. But I doubt if that will change the court's decision. My opinion is it probably won't, as the decision still falls under the privy and decision of church policy which is what the legal system stated it won't get involved with. As for your points Chet. I doubt if Eric's lawyer would bring those up in a complaint. If the court did agree with the points of contention that were brought out during the first half of Hall's court case, it's done.
  
  I do remember seeing a video presented on Survey from somewhere in Europe, I believe in the Netherlands. Some government body there is looking at this thing. I watched their comments to each other, and from their comments it seems they take it pretty seriously. But one of the opposing lawyers to Hall brought out USA courts have already agreed with those points in opposition to Hall's contentions. Which means we shouldn't expect anything to change in the USA for now.

  • Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-13 05:33:49

    How about just simply call them Evil Slave Class Inc. Done.

  • Reply by Chet on 2019-05-13 09:47:25

    We are discussing law, but this is not a court of law. Obviously, any attorney considering taking on a case such as Eric’s would research and certainly look for precedents. I believe that the JW Org has been successfully sued in the past for their judicial practices. Any organization that size will have gone through numerous suits and almost certainly lost at least some of them. Their judicial practices do not meet the standards of British Common Law, presumption of innocence, etc. and if it can be proven that they’ve caused harm it becomes legally actionable.
    
    One thing I liked in the letter written by Eric’s lawyer was the fact that calling apostates mentally diseased means that DFing someone for apostasy automatically becomes defamation.
    
    My goal in commenting is to point out areas of weakness and inconsistency in the Org’s position. I believe that they have plenty and possibly these can be used as a means to force them away from shunning. Remove that power and they will deflate rapidly.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-13 12:16:57

  *** w55 7/1 p. 411 par. 15 Christian Baptism for the New World Society ***
  A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.
  
  There was another quote I ran across which I cannot find at the moment which reiterated this belief into the mid 60s which covers me who was baptised in 1963.

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-14 03:05:58

    Eric,
    
    There are several huge problems if you try arguing in court, based on those WT articles, that you were never part of Jehovah's Witnesses, The Christian Congregation Of Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower, or what ever name the Society takes on . I will just explain two of the problems. In a court case it will be very difficult in your successfully hurdling the first issue and impossible hurdling the second, shy an act of God.
    
    The first issue has to do with contract law. In contract law even with a written contract, if provisions within the contract are changed through the actions the parties (which include non-actions) then provisions become unenforceable. Something needs to be done in a timely manner to re-establish a provision that is not observed for it to remain enforceable at a later date. If you do nothing it is accepted by the court that you waived your right to enforce that provision later on. The laws governing this are called waiver and release, or just waiver. Even if a contract is written that applies, but that also applies if a contract is verbal. Again if one of the parties changes one or more of the provisions in a contract by their actions, then that provision is legally considered unenforceable unless the other party, in a timely manner objects, and takes ACTION to reestablish the original agreement.
    
    You accepted WT's interpretation of what a Jehovah's Witness is. That included their interpretation that ALL members follow the Governing Body and could be disfellowshipped if they don't. You even accepted the position of elder, definitely accepting a POSITION of oversight as a member in that organization. And you knew WT consider you, as an elder, to be a member of its organization. Therefore, If you ever did have a legal claim to say you are not a member based on the date of your baptism and those WT articles you cite, you waived that right. To enforce it, if it was valid you needed to do something a long time ago. But I doubt WT would even argue that, because their other argument is so strong.
    
    But let's assume in a Canadian court you get by those points because WT lawyers do raise them. The Supreme Court already stated Canadian courts have no right to intrude in decisions religions make as to teaching and organizational policies. That surely would include the religion can change its policies. According to the court your only remedy is to leave. Because the court will not hear your case on that grounds you claim in those articles. Those articles discuss religious beliefs and policy.
    
    Chet keeps saying we are not discussing court law. Good some aren't. But if you are considering going to court, isn't that the main issue? It has to either be that or getting publicity from the case, which is not what I believe you are after.
    
    Some comments on this page were derogatory comments about the WT lawyer. I felt all the lawyers in Hall's case were quite capable. I believe Hall's lawyer was good, but I don't believe he had as clear a grasp on correct interpretations and the judicial intentions of some of those cases he cited as the WT lawyer, and those other attorneys who filed amicus briefs. The Judges present and the other attorneys interpreted preexisting law better. It's possible Wall's lawyer knew, but looked for alternative interpretations in representing is client. For the intent of pressing the court to establish new law. Which the court resisted.
    
    The WT attorney could have acted in the same way the when he claimed an unsatisfied JW could go start his own religion even propositioning active Jehovah's Witnesses to join him. While the JW attorney failed to say there would be a figurative lynching in the Hall if that ever were to happen. The JW attorney was not attempting to establish new law as Hall's attorney did, but he was misleading the court through his interpretation to benefit his client. I don't consider much if any of the other statements he made to be in error. Because the court agreed with WT based on past rulings.
    
    Your Supreme Court was clear, even in that small excerpt I read and posted above. Shy a breach of contract, a criminal action against you, or possibly a civil rights violation they prohibit their courts from getting involved in what WT does with its members.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-14 14:58:53

      Actually, my issue is not with their right to remove membership status. As the Hall case proved, every religion has that right and the governments of the world do not want to get involved in it. But I wasn't a member. By their own public statement, I am allowed to leave unmolested.
      How can you revoke my membership if I'm not a member?
      
      I know of people who have written in who left the organization 10 years ago, 20 years ago, even 30 years ago. They have not associated in all that time and do not consider themselves Jehovah's Witnesses nor would anyone else view them as such. They were never disfellowshipped. They simply left. They still have family and friends who are witnesses, and still associate with them. The association may be limited based on JW doctrine, but it does not restricted.
      
      What if the organization decided arbitrarily – something they are quite capable of doing as we've seen in my own case – of disfellowshipping one of these individuals? Are they really revoking the membership? I think this is the real issue. Just because Jehovah's Witnesses say that they are removing someone's membership doesn't make it so legally or otherwise. Rather than let them define their actions, we need to let the actions define them.
      
      There are literally thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses who are PIMO. Why would someone choose to remain a practising Jehovah's Witness when mentally they are completely out of the religion? There is only one reason. Fear. Fear of the reprisals that they will suffer if they leave. This is the "theocratic" version of the Berlin Wall. Take down the wall and just watch the exodus.
      
      Jehovah's Witnesses, like every other religion in North America and Europe, and indeed in most of the world, enjoy enormous privileges and freedoms. In many cases they have fought very hard to gain freedom of religion for themselves and their flocks. Therefore, it is the height of irony that those who fought to enshrine in law such human rights should be some of the worst abusers of those same rights and freedoms.
      
      Here are four articles from the universal declaration of human rights:
      
      Article 17.
      
      (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
      
      Article 18.
      
      Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
      
      Article 19.
      
      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
      
      Article 20.
      
      (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
      (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
      
      Jehovah's Witnesses are violating all four routinely, constantly, and internationally. The question becomes, how do we hold them accountable? How do we bring them to justice?
      
      I don't care that I'm no longer a member because I removed myself four years ago. It's like I quit a company I was working for years in the past, and then one day, out of the blue, get a call from the manager telling me I'm fired. It's laughable. It's ridiculous.
      
      But if by officially firing me the manager is going to radically and negatively affect my life, then I do care. If he is removing my basic human rights, my basic freedoms, by taking this action, then the issue goes way beyond the right of a company, club, federation, or religion, to determine who is a member and who is not.
      
      Whether the laws in Canada are up to the task or not, I do not know. Perhaps this is not an issue for the courts. Perhaps it is an issue for the legislature. Recently in Canada a law was passed which would allow the police to arrest a person from committing a hate crime for refusing to use a designated pronoun to describe a person. Legally, if a man, for example, wants to be referred to by the pronoun "she", I am legally bound to comply or suffer arrest.
      
      The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is holding thousands of our brothers and sisters hostage to their unscriptural shunning policy. If calling someone by the wrong pronoun is considered an arrestable offense, how much more so should the extreme discrimination imposed by the shunning policy constitute a criminal offense? That is the question that needs to be addressed, in my humble opinion.

    • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-14 19:28:39

      Eric,
      
      See Eric I agree that WT is doing what you stated they are doing. But the fact that WT is apostate and is doing everything you claim, I just don't believe will help you in court. The Canadian Supreme Court most likely will not hear your case. And that's where WT will take it, should you prevail in a lower court. Your Supreme Court doesn't want to open the floodgate's, as Alithia expresses it, of GETTING INVOLVED in religious matters.
      
      All the lawyers from different denomination that commented at Wall's hearing were not there because WT asked them to come. They were there because somehow they became aware of what was being decided, and THEIR organizations sent them to represent their organizations in the matter of your government's involvement into their religious practice. None of them want it. And they will all fight it together.
      
      Imagine you were one of the judges deciding that decision with every religious organization in your country on one side, and a sole plaintiff on the other. Most people will fold, and bow to the wishes of power and the majority. Psychological experiments have been conducted that prove many people will do harm to individuals when they are part of a group. The type and degree of harm that they would never because on conscience do when acting as an individual. You might have seen some of that acting as a WT servant with other elders. Other experiments prove many people will harm others when directed to by someone that they perceive as an authority. About 5% of the tested subject group even took action themselves that they knew, according to what they were told, should have caused death to an individual.
      
      The Canadian legislature might eventually pass some law to prevent harm due to shunning. Canadian courts might eventually interpret some part of current law to stop it. That's what Hall's lawyer was hoping for. But from viewing the video it's clear the court was not about to do so then, and I assume it consists of mostly the same people today. The idea of reinterpreting the law was raised to one of the judges by Hall's attorney. Her response was "good luck" in that. As it's not going to happen.
      
      I doubt the court would at this time give any consideration to ideas about: WT's changing it's policy about membership; contradictory statements about membership from WT; or who WT stated is part of its organization. I believe the court would just decide not to get involved, as it stated in the Hall case.
      
      Also, the fact you have just recently taken the position of never being a member, after serving as an elder for 40 years-would in my opinion- if considered by the court, not be accepted by the judges. I believe they would state you were a member and were a member according to WT since WT said you were, until you were removed by WT, or instead if you had chosen to follow WT's policy to remove yourself-while not giving weight to WT statements that a publisher can just leave. That court position would be in agreement with their stated purpose not to get involved with religious policies, but allow religions to establish their own rules and procedures.
      
      WT probably took notice of you because they knew who you are and were able to track you down. Even though my profile isn't as high as yours I'm sure they'd like to do the same thing to me if they knew where to find me. And it's because of what you and I say. Best wishes Eric. For us it won't be too long until all of this stuff is over. You know how fast time goes. Soon we'll be free of this. In the New World we'll remember, but it won't be painful. We won't relate to the pain there.

• Reply by Alithia on 2019-05-14 06:19:10

  Hello all and especially Chet. Chet I get what you are saying about JWs being non-denominational etc.
  
  I think it is only those who are older and of a certain vintage who can recall what you say.
  
  I think what you are saying is true, however it is the old oral law versus the underlying real law of the Org that creates the illusion and the confusion of freedom and unity under the Christ and not some man made organisation.
  
  I do clearly remember when I was a nipper that if we were asked what religion we were we would respond that we were not a religion, rather we are Jehovah's Witnesses, or simply Christians.
  
  This was rehearsed and demonstrated numerous times at assemblies and at K/Hall demos as the appropriate response. The reason being we do not follow men rather Jesus only.
  
  In fact the word religion was a dirty word for JWs. It was part of Christendom and we wanted no part of it! I remember the teacher asking what a minister was? My hand shot up and said a very bad man! Did not go down well. We had our own interpretation and language culture as they do today.
  
  This may have given the illusion we are not part of an Org. Yet underlying at the time it was ruled by an authoritarian leadership of men.
  
  I also remember clearly we were told that we could not even tell people who our leaders were, and this was true thru the 60s, 70s until the 80s. Then I would hear at the assemblies being chastised as young ones for possibly having posters of the pop stars on the walls as this was idolatry. But the question was posed do we know who the members of the Gov body are?
  
  Well this left us all stumped because the culture was we did not know and should not care about humans for we were lead by Christ.
  
  I am sure the oldies will remember this stuff. So my point is Chet what you say is true of the teachings and the culture for sure. But the thing is it is so slippery trying to prove it as at the same time there was power play like one could not believe behind the scenes proving there definitely is a hierarchy the has or would like to have complete control and the members obligated to their death etc. Does anyone agree with what I am saying???
  
  Love to all Alithia.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-14 14:31:24

    I remember all of that Alithia. I even remember a time in the 60s when we used to refer to the service arrangements as rendezvous's for fear that we would be giving away information in the event of persecution. But you're right, it's hard to prove any of this stuff or to make a good case in a court of law. But I have some ideas that might effect change. A way of attacking them from a different angle, something they wouldn't expect. I am working on it with legal counsel and hope to have something in the next few weeks.

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-05-13 04:22:10

A man does not like the boy next door. He did something last year and has not apologised.

He tells his son "Do not talk to him. If you do, I will disown you and you will be no part of my family".

The son has a choice. But not much of one. So he obeys.

He then talks to the boy, and is disowned. He has to leave home.

The man then tells the neighbours that his son has been disobedient and has left home, but the door is always open for him to come back. However, you must not talk to him.

Did I mention that all the neighbours work for his company. Sorry.

What do you expect the neighbours to say ?

a. Thanks for telling us
b. Don't make your problem mine.
c. What are, the Mafia ?
d. Something else.

Of course the answer will probably be A. And many will actually believe you. But some will be thinking b or c or d. Maybe one or two might even take a risk and ignore what they are told to do.

How we deal with our children is our choice. You won't be the first, and you won't be the last to turf a child out of home. It still seems rather harsh, but circumstances differ.

Unfortunately, when you have a hold on others, there is not a lot they can do. You are the feudal lord, the Mafia, the KKK, or some controlling political party. It's a power thing. You have power and you use it to maintain your position.

It has been like that for an awfully long time. That is why the Bible says what it does at Jeremiah (10:23), Psalm 146:3, and 1 John 4:1.

One day, some day, the birds will come home.

Eric, we will continue to talk to you, because we do not like what the man tells us and we do not agree. You have taken a bold stand and shown us the determination of WT.
You have woken us up to the wrong things that have been spoken in God's name. Well done is an understatement. I can never thank you enough for the truths you have shown me.

• Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-13 05:29:58

  Made me
  shudder Leonardo, what an outstanding illustration.
  My POMO husband just said about how Eric was treated - as are so many fine Christians.." What a bunch of (edit) ..um, BANANAS".

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-13 12:23:08

    ????

    • Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-13 18:31:15

      Glad you liked that Eric.
      Gotta laugh at times. SO unbelievably pathetic "witch-hunt"!

    • Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-13 18:35:01

      Glad you had a laugh Eric. You gotta laugh at these goons - unbelievable pathetic" witch hunt".
      Regards

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-13 12:21:21

  Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Leonardo.

Comment by messenger on 2019-05-13 21:12:46

[“In the end, religious groups are free to determine their own membership and rules,” Justice Malcolm Rowe wrote in the decision, adding that courts will not intervene in such matters unless it is necessary to resolve an underlying legal dispute.] an excerpt quote from the Wall case decision by Canada's Supreme Court.

Following is the case's history as reported by Global News:

"In a submission to the Court of Queen’s Bench, Wall said that his real estate clients — about half of whom belonged to Jehovah’s Witness congregations — refused to conduct business with him any longer.

A judge concluded the court had jurisdiction to hear the case on the grounds that being shunned had an economic impact on Wall.

The provincial Court of Appeal upheld the decision, and the congregation then took its arguments to the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the high court said the purpose of judicial review is to ensure the legality of state decision-making. However, in this case, the congregational committee was not exercising statutory authority.

“Private parties cannot seek judicial review to solve disputes that may arise between them.”

The claim Wall made against WT was REVERSED by Canada's Supreme Court. So the claim by Wall against WT that shunning effected a lose of business, and thus a lose of economic revenue giving him a legal right to sue was struck down by the supreme court.

However, The court might hear a case that involves breach of contractual obligations, criminal activity, or civil rights abuse. That idea was thoroughly discussed in this Supreme Court hearing. I haven't read about it in the court's decision. I haven't read the whole decision, just that part that I posted above. WT's lawyer agreed that contractual obligations, or criminal activity within a religion should be accepted for litigation by the court. If so, "Tortious interference", also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, probably can be litigated within a religious group, IF THERE IS A CONTRACT. TORTIOUS INTEREFERENCE in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm. If WT or elders tell someone not to honor a contract that claim might prevail.

But no doubt WT will claim in such a case that it does not tell its members to disengage in business relationships, but that those decisions not to associate, and more precisely the decision to breach a contract in a case of Tortious interference was made by the individual who breached, with no encouragement by WT to do it. WT might prevail in this claim as from what I remember WT does, and has allowed it's members to work for disfellowshipped members, and do business with them.

As a side point in contract law if one party acts on the promise of another party's promise to engage in some action in return, then there is a legal obligation for the promising party to fulfill his obligation. That law is named promissory estoppel. Therefore, a TORTIOUS INTEREFERENCE case might prevail if elders or WT caused a party to back out of fulfilling a promised obligation in certain circumstances. And those circumstances would include the party that received that promise, acted upon that promise. Not just that a promise was made.

Unfortunately for the average shunned ex-JW the Courts in the USA and Canada have ruled in WT's favor. Those courts say WT has a legal right to shun you, and tell your friends and relatives to shun you. That issue has been litigated already. And it was brought up in that Supreme Court hearing, although orally just briefly considered. But you should know motions by all parties explaining their positions along with legal arguments were submitted to each judge for their examination before oral presentations are made. Decisions in Supreme Courts are almost always made because of the written documents submitted, and oral arguments usually do not change the mind of those judges.

I am not a lawyer, and the information I offer about the law should not be taken that I am offering legal advice. That is against the law for me to do, as it is against the law to practice law without a license. I built a business and managed it for twenty years. The points I know about the law I learned through engaging in contractual disputes, while protecting my business interests. I worked closely with my lawyers while doing that. But that and my legal research on the internet hasn't bought be a two dollar doughnut on a courthouse step for offering advice to others. It has helped in winning awards totally several hundred thousand dollars though for me and my family members.

Comment by quibusdam on 2019-05-14 00:58:49

Hi, Eric:

I hope my comment results in some good, and not just irritation.

I can't keep up with the articles on this web site. I restricted my previous comment to the lawyer's letter. You brought up the Youtubes. I have run into this problem before on this web site, that to be prepared to intelligently comment on an article you need to have read other articles. I watched to the Youtube "My Judicial Committee - A Questioning Letter". The Youtube illuminates the lawyer's letter, showing that I was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in what I said before.

Your use of the Bible was thoroughly reasonable, as I would expect it to be. I would expect the hierarchy of Jehovah's Witnesses to put pragmatism and survival as an organization above the Bible, and that is what they did. Even though you consider the Bible to be clear about congregational discipline, churches have many interpretations.

Your letter to the elders reveals that you DID know that you were going to be charged with apostasy, but were asking for the charge in WRITING, which fact I didn't previously know, having misunderstood the lawyer's letter. An American court would want to know if you were or were not a Witness so it would know whether it would intervene. The elders summoned you because they thought you were still a Witness. Your multitude of criticisms on the internet could be construed as a de facto resignation from the religion. But you made it clear that you were a Witness by showing up for the committee meeting and saying that you were not disassociating yourself.

Your reference to secular courts is irrelevant IF Canadian law is like American law, since churches are exempt from government interference. So you don't have those rights. But the time is probably coming when the only legal churches in the USA (and probably other English-speaking countries) will have clergy approved by the government, who will teach doctrines approved by the government. At such time people who oppose drunkards, abortion, and fornicators will probably be disfellowshipped. This won't immediately affect me since I am incompatible with churches.

I don't fully agree with your explanation of disassociation, even if the conversation between Knorr and Franz really occurred exactly the way you said. Churches allow resignation from congregations for legal reasons. The superior authorities of Romans 13 in the USA have decided NOT to intervene with church discipline IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH. But they will intervene if the church harms you after you resign. The article I link to below contains this passage: "The above stated reasons indicate that the term disassociation is used by the Society to protect itself against lawsuits."

http://perimeno.ca/Letters_0511_Disassociation.htm

Upon reading the lawyer's letter again: (a) The lawyer definitely did say that your YouTube following provides support revenue, even though you said that you make zilch from the YouTubes. (b) The lawyer ignores Canadian case history involving separation of church and state. The Watchtower lawyers are going to use it as a defense. The kind of things he is complaining about conceivably could be successfully sued for in the United States. The lawyer reports your position in the letter, but does not actually say that you have the legal rights that you think you do. He separates the legal issues under a separate heading. (c) The lawyer said that you wanted to reverse the decision to disfellowship you. In the context of the letter, the motive that you wanted reinstatement was not that you were compatible with the denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses, but that you would otherwise lose money.

Of course the Watchtower is wrong to call doctrinal defectors "mentally diseased". It's been doing that since about 1980. Of course disfellowshipping results in loss of income and other harm. But I think that (a) legally you should simply change churches, and (b) being reinstated into a church you don't believe in is not the right solution to remedy the harm JW's do, and (c) a successful lawsuit will be a step toward government-regulated churches, which I think will be worse than the woefully imperfect churches we have now.

• Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-14 04:37:01

  Dear quib... That was a particularly articulate commentary presentation. Insightful.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-14 15:35:14

  “But you made it clear that you were a Witness by showing up for the committee meeting and saying that you were not disassociating yourself.“
  
  I disagree. According to their own website a person can leave without writing an official letter. I chose that method of leaving and I no longer claim publicly on the website or on YouTube to be a Jehovah’s Witness. The reason I showed up to the meeting was not because I recognized their claim, I was a Jehovah’s Witness but rather because I wanted the opportunity to show them that disfellowshipping as they practice it has nothing to do with membership status. Of course, I will not claim to be so naïve as to think that what I would say would change their minds, though to be fair I thought I would have more of a chance than they actually provided me. The lengths they went to to keep me from speaking were a surprise that even 40 years as an elder could not prepare me for. Of course, I never got that opportunity because of the various measures they took to stifle my defence.
  
  “The elders summoned you because they thought you were still a Witness.”
  
  I also disagree with this statement. They knew full well I was no longer associating nor claiming to be a witness. And if they had any doubt, I cleared it up in my letter. They summoned me because they were told to summon me by Bethel. I have that on good authority, which I cannot reveal here. Exactly why, I do not know. However, I think the exponential growth of interest in the videos that came about as a result of launching the Spanish channel made them afraid of the growing influence of the BP sites and, as I said elsewhere, they only have one weapon to use, so they used it
  
  “(a) The lawyer definitely did say that your YouTube following provides support revenue, even though you said that you make zilch from the YouTubes.”
  
  I’m sorry but this is argumentative. I explained this already but I’ll explain it one more time and that will be the end of it.
  
  The revenue that comes in is used to pay for the expenses to support the website and produce the videos. Were it not for this funding, I would have to pay this myself and since I’m retired, it would be an onerous burden. So, I benefit from the revenue that comes in, but I do not take a salary for personal expenses. The money is used to cover expenses relating to maintaining the websites and producing the videos. Were not for this funding, I probably would not be able to continue, certainly not at the rate and scale that you see at present.
  
  “Of course the Watchtower is wrong to call doctrinal defectors "mentally diseased". It's been doing that since about 1980. Of course disfellowshipping results in loss of income and other harm. But I think that (a) legally you should simply change churches, and (b) being reinstated into a church you don't believe in is not the right solution to remedy the harm JW's do, and (c) a successful lawsuit will be a step toward government-regulated churches, which I think will be worse than the woefully imperfect churches we have now.“
  
  I appreciate constructive comments, but to be constructive one has to be well-versed in the situation if one presumes to offer instruction. This is not seem to be the case here, and as a consequence your comment comes off as unnecessarily negative and critical.
  
  For example, (a) why would I want to change churches? Why do you presume I would want to change churches or would even consider that? That tells me you are not aware of my position though I have stated repeatedly in both articles and videos.
  
  As for (b), well, duh! It appears you think I was going for reinstatement. Seriously, if you’re going to give me counsel, get all the facts first, otherwise you just look foolish.
  
  As for the final point, let’s be clear on something, the churches of Christendom, and for that matter the rest of the world, are in reality rival governments. The governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a government over a nation of 8 million people. They make that claim themselves. The Church of Rome governs 2 billion people around the world. Every church governs and lays down laws for those under its influence. And that influence is incredibly powerful because it has caused people to kill one another in wars for centuries.
  
  So, should the governments of the world regulate the churches of the world? Absolutely, be divine decree. According to Romans 13 1 to 7, the governments have been appointed as God’s ministers. The churches of the world have not been appointed as his ministers. In fact, they sit as rivals to the Christ. We’ve seen this with the governing body wherein they replace the commandments of Christ with their own commandments.
  
  I believe in true worship. I believe that Christians should gather together in small groups and have one leader over them, Jesus Christ. The moment they organize into a religion with its own set of rules, regulations, and doctrines, they become the enemy of Christ.

  • Reply by quibusdam on 2019-05-17 17:41:01

    I just read your response. I was surprised to see that you are against the secular governments ever yielding their rulership to churches in the way that they do. There are church web sites that give advice to ministers to avoid getting sued. The view of many churches is like that of Witnesses: you leave a church by either getting kicked out or writing a letter of resignation. In other words, their views are very similar to the WT's, and they are always thinking about lawsuits. I don't understand why you are suing JW's alone instead of trying change Canadian law, as it affects all churches. The lawyer's letter explained your position and separately listed what is legally actionable; the two don't match. You don't have to explain it to me. I will have to wait and see how the lawsuit progresses. I won't bother you with any more comments about this matter.

Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-05-14 23:53:28

Eric my brother, every time I watch your video, I get so,so,so upset about how the org has 2 sets of rules one applies to us & the other applies to them.

I truly admire your stand before them.

In the reasoning from the scriptures under the subheading:

How to Use “Reasoning From the Scriptures”. It says:

"The pattern to follow in helping others to understand the Bible is that provided by Jesus Christ and his apostles.

In answer to questions, Jesus quoted scriptures and at times used appropriate illustrations that would help honest-hearted persons to be receptive to what the Bible says. (Matt. 12:1-12)

The apostle Paul made it a practice to ‘reason from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references’ what he taught. (Acts 17:2, 3)

This publication has not been prepared for the purpose of helping anyone to “win arguments” with people who show no respect for the truth. Rather, it provides valuable information that is meant to be used in reasoning with individuals who will allow you to do so.

Some of them may ask questions to which they really want satisfying answers. Others, in the course of conversation, may simply state their own beliefs and they may do so with some conviction.

But are they reasonable persons who are willing to listen to another viewpoint? If so, you can share with them what the Bible says, doing so with the conviction that it will find welcome response in the hearts of lovers of truth."

Thats all what you were asking Eric, just show me what I have done wrong?

How did I offend anyone in this congregation that I have NOT associated for the last 4 years?

Genuine questions that warranted answers, and here is the thing that I dont understand:

Why did they not do a shepherding call on you and ask you what they have been hearing about you, and weather the charges are true or false?

In the case of Sodom & Gomorrah, the bible tells us in Genesis 18: 20 Then Jehovah said: “The outcry against Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah is indeed great, and their sin is very heavy. 21 I will go down to see whether they are acting according to the outcry that has reached me. And if not, I can get to know it.”

Jehovah saw what was happening, but non the less he sent angles to investigate the matter before he acted.

So again I cannot for the life of me understand as to why didn't the elders do a shepherding call on you to see if what they have been told was true.

Maybe to the org you are worse than the entire Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah put together...... That should put a smile on your face Eric.

Well done my friend.

1 Timothy 6: 12 Fight the fine fight of the faith; get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the fine public declaration in front of many witnesses.


Take care my brother

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-17 09:32:18

  Excellent thoughts JamesBrown, and valid questions all. Of course, they refused to answer any such questions because they could not without revealing the shaky foundation upon which they are were basing their actions. They had a mission to carry out, one assigned to them by the branch office, and they were going to make it happen no matter what.

Comment by leaving_quietly on 2019-05-16 18:59:07

I watched the video and have been mulling it over for a few days now.

On the one hand, I know you know the rules, and I'm pretty sure you realized you were trying to bend them by insisting that your witnesses be present throughout the hearing. As a former elder myself, I have never taken that clause in the elder's manual to mean that witnesses can be present for the entire hearing, but only when necessary. But since the hearing never took place, you never really gave them the opportunity to proceed with the hearing in the manner in which it usually proceeds. In my opinion, you made the mistake here of prematurely insisting. On the other hand, I do fully understand that part of your motive was to expose how judicial hearings really are mock trials. You, the accused (of some broad category called "apostasy"), were stripped of all lines of defense right from the outset. That they called you a "guest" was also quite insulting. You were no guest to them. They had already made up their minds. It was clear with all the guards and trucks across the driveway entrances. They were expecting a fight. This entire thing was a formality, a hoop they had to jump through to get you DF'd. That was easy to see.

You state in the comments that your motive was, in your words: "...the opportunity to show them that disfellowshipping as they practice it has nothing to do with membership status." In that case, yes, I agree that you made that clear. But at the same time, had you gone ahead with the hearing you would likely have had the opportunity to present your witnesses. The fact that the "guards" at the door wouldn't lift a finger to ask the committee whether you could have your witnesses present was disturbing to me. You and your friends did ask several times for the gatekeepers to ask the ones running the show. If they had asked and the committee said no, would you have continued? If they had asked and the committee said no, not at this time, but when the time comes, then yes, would you have continued?

The fact that they were not permitting you to wear your jacket in or bring in you paper notes was over the top. The jacket I can somewhat understand because someone could have a *gasp* pen camera recording them. But paper notes? That did show a level of fear I've not ever seen before. I also would have had a binder of paper notes and would have insisted on bringing them with me. No notes, no hearing. Period. In that, I think you were in the right. And because I get cold easily and physically shake while under great distress, I would have permitted them to search my jacket, but would have insisted on having that with me due to my physical condition.

I was hoping to see the actual hearing. Not that I would wish that on anybody, and not that that would have changed anything, but if you reason with them the way you reason on this site, then it would have been interesting to watch and measure their reactions.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-17 09:30:08

  Yes, I was bending the rules, but they should have allowed them into the hall at the very least according to the regulations laid down in the KS book. We could've gone into the back room and they could've called witnesses in. The fact that they wouldn't even let them into the hall--in fact not even on the property--told me they had no intention of permitting witnesses at all.
  
  The fact that they would not allow me my paper notes told me they didn't want to hear from me. They wanted to ask me questions but they didn't want to reason on anything nor be asked questions themselves. In a police interrogation, when the guy sitting opposite the policeman asks a question, the response is, "We're asking the questions here."
  
  I think that pretty much sums up what I would have encountered on the other side of the door had I gone in. Any points I raised in objection, any reasoning I put forward, would have been received with the same blank faces, non-responsive statements, and evasion that was evident in the first encounter.
  
  Frankly, it's evident that they are terrified of us. They must stop up their ears to avoid hearing the truth.
  
  “. . .If the light that is in you is really darkness, how great that darkness is!” (Mt 6:23)

  • Reply by James on 2019-05-17 15:57:01

    Had the elders had their own witnesses to testify against you, would they have been kept outside the hall? Definitely not. From the look of the hall it is a large one, witnesses could sit in the main hall while hearing takes places in the smaller rooms. As rightly said, the doorkeepers not even daring to ask committee member if Eric witness can be allowed into the main hall speaks volume, besides they had a key to the main entrance indicating the human security is not enough.
    
    The committee member had issues in that they can't claim ignorance of your presence and that discussions were on at the door for an extended period, they cared less to find out what was happening.
    I guess a top shot from US or HQ or Canadian branch was in there.
    
    Bro Eric, continue with your courage and boldness, the greatest victory was freeing ourselves from their mental dominance, that hurts them .Please limit your plans about them from your comments here as they have a committee who monitors everything here.
    They discouraged rank and file from reading apostate materials but assigned high profile elders to do so,hypocrisy.

Comment by messenger on 2019-05-16 21:26:48

Eric, apply my recent donation to your legal defense against Watchtower.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-17 09:05:37

  Thank you so much, Messenger. I'll be consulting a human rights lawyer on Tuesday, so we'll see what is the best course of action within the Canadian judicial system.

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-17 14:21:34

    You 're welcome Eric, and as always wishing the best for you.
    
    Please make a note to yourself that all donations that I send in should be used for your legal expenses until your fight against WT is over

  • Reply by lost in space on 2019-05-20 06:01:28

    We are sincerely hoping for the very best possible outcome, dear Eric.
    
    Times like these you must be also missing your wife and friends.

Comment by Alithia on 2019-05-21 05:45:31

The Org often refers to the mock trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin as the epitome of prejudice, bias, representative of the abuse of power and how those in authority can set aside justice where it seems expedient and there is a desire to bring about an outcome regardless of the degree of injustice in the proceedings.

The Org publications have plenty of illustrations of this event with pictures of the high priest and others, depicted with their faces contorted in uncontrollable rage. The point is made how the personal desires of Jesus' accusers over-rode their ability to see themselves and their actions for what they are. They simply had already made their minds up!

In this madness there is a voice begging for reason by a reticent Nicodemus who , seeking a fair trial for Jesus, asks the Sanhedrin to consider the following.

John 7:51. NSAB. "Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?"

Neither in the case of Jesus, Eric or anyone else, the typical judicial committee operates in the same fashion of the Sanhedrin. In nearly all of the cases it is more or less fait accompli' before any evidence is heard.

Considering the fact of the need by the Org judicial system of 2 witnesses to a child molestation or rape, it begins t o become very clear as to the real motives of the those involved in Erics case as in child abuse cases too.

They only give lip service to the need for 2 witnesses or irrefutable evidence when it suits them only. In many cases they are happy to dispense with justice as requiring a fair hearing , a defense with witnesses and an impartial decision.

Like the Sanhedrin Org and their lackeys have too much to lose if they gave anyone a fair hearing and examined the facts presented to them.

Love to all from Alithia.

• Reply by Chet on 2019-05-21 10:34:37

  There’s a supreme irony in all of this. They have become everything they claimed to be standing apart from. Initially, they were the anti-religion; a haven for people who had tired of organized religion. Since then, they have progressed into one of the most organized religions in existence and they are not about to let a little thing like justice stand in their way.

Comment by messenger on 2019-05-22 19:12:38

Eric four days ago I posted the following request on JWSurvey. However, that site held it in limbo until today (May, 22). After three attempts at posting it I sent a message to John Redwood, stating I know his site had received the post because I received a message of duplication when re-sending it, after seeing the first attempt didn't post. Then I added to it and tried for a third attempt. No go with that one either. I asked John whether his site was extending their censorship guidelines beyond the ones they've posted. There was no response to that question from the site.

Anyway, it appears Survey just released my post today. The problem with that is that a new article was also just presented on Survey today, which means this post of mine will most likely receive very few views, as it is now buried in the muck, not only by the new article, but by other comments also.

If you go ahead with your case I'll shoot a similar post to Survey again. We'll see if readers there would like to share in the expense of a lawsuit against WT policies.

Take care Eric.

The Post :

messenger says:
May 18, 2019 at 5:10 pm

"Hello John Redwood.

About an hour ago I sent in a comment that was disallowed, though it wasn’t outside the posted guidelines for commentary. Have you extended your criteria for censorship? If not do you know why the post was disallowed? I know your site received it. Because I’d copied it, and right after I sent it off and saw it was not posted I sent the exact same comment again. A message appeared on your site saying I had sent a duplicate copy. Which was true, but the first one was never posted. Neither was the second posted. Maybe you can look into whether or not the censorship guidelines have been extended, and if so explain why. Thanks.

Reply
messenger says:
May 18, 2019 at 5:20 pm
To all atheists, disfellowshipped JWs, disenfranchised brothers and sisters remaining inside the congregation, and THOSE THAT ARE JUST AGAINST THE DISFELLOWSHIPPING (SHUNNING) POLICY OF WT.

Eric Wilson, the owner of the website Borean Pickets Watchtower Reviewer, recently got disfellowshipped. He hadn’t attended a Kingdom Hall for four years. WT accused him of the same charge John Redwood is now being accused of. Eric has an appointment with a civil rights attorney on Tuesday, and if the attorney feels he has a winnable claim I’m pretty confident he will file a lawsuit against WT, FOR DISFELLOWSHIPPING AND TELLING OTHERS TO SHUN HIM.

Eric lives in Canada, but should such a case there prevail it could effect WT’s policy on shunning internationally. It could also open the floodgates to a host of similar lawsuits. Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled that they will hear cases against WT if:

1. A criminal law was violated against the plaintiff.
2. The claim involves property rights or a LEGAL contract.
3. Or there is a CIVIL RIGHTS violation.

It’s possible Eric might prevail in area three, while also claiming defamation of character, which applies to area one.

I am asking YOU to contribute. Eric is retired. He has a large internet following that you might not be a part of. If not donations to a legal fund for this purpose can be made on his site. If you contribute on his website for this purpose you can inform him to apply your funds only to his legal claim AGAINST WT.

By himself Eric might not be able to fund this whole case. I don’t know, because I only know him like I know some of YOU. But it’s my belief that together, if all of us contribute something, the case can be funded.

ARE YOU WILLING TO HELP?

THE ONLY CHANCE TO CHANGE WT’S DISFELLOWSHIPPING AND SHUNNING POLICY IS THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM OR LEGISLATURES. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CHANCES"

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-05-22 19:52:33

  Thanks Messenger. I've had a few contributions come in which gave me enough to consult a human rights attorney. I'll be meeting with Walter this weekend to discuss the next step. So I'd hold off until we know if it's worth going further. I wouldn't want the brothers contributing for legal expenses unless I can make legitimate use of the funds.
  
  I so appreciate your support.
  
  eric

  • Reply by messenger on 2019-05-23 01:48:57

    Okay.

Comment by Atromitos on 2019-07-08 05:16:46

Most of the legal schmegal stuff here is over my head. Not disrespecting at all, it's an important aspect to many and worthy of discussion.

This I do understand. It would seem that many of 'the faithful' are looking outside the org for the conversations they hunger for and have stumbled upon sites like this. I personally tried to find those conversations, while sifting out anything that smelt bitter or attacking. I can honestly say I found more than I was looking for, which is currently challenging me.

It would seem that there are a significant number of those like me, enough to require a cracking down so to speak.

The most efficient way to close these conduits to most JWs is to identify, charge as apostate, and disfellowship the hosts of these discussion forums. Since Eric's formal DF, my association here has gone from 'unwise' to a disfellowshipping offence, should it become known. This means by doing nothing different, my real status ( all things being open and honest) has changed.

I think (feel free to correct me) that this was the basis for Eric's fight to not submit to the DF process.

There are many who have not yet disentangled themselves enough to face that challenge.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-07-08 08:33:13

  Hi Atromitos,
  
  Welcome to our little community.
  
  Meleti

  • Reply by Atromitos on 2019-07-08 09:31:21

    Thanks for having me :)

Comment by Zacheus on 2020-05-13 02:20:45

Please, what was the result of the lawyers letter to the elders?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-13 07:00:06

  It did not dissuade them. It is very hard to sue a church in Canada and win. The government doesn't want to open a can of worms and weaaken the protections afforded religions since confederation.