Legal Posturing Options

[PeacefulBe]

In light of a few comments above, I'm curious what kind of value others place on church membership. I'm in good standing, and have never been otherwise, but I wouldn't think about it twice if some church authority came along and told me I had been dismembered by the authorities (I know--wrong word, but humorous nonetheless, and of course I probably wouldn't even be able to think if I was dismembered, lol!). But why wouldn't it bother me? I've come to realize that "belonging" to organizations of the heart is fairly meaningless, and probably one of the greatest of human weaknesses. I draw zero security from belonging to clubs, organizations, etc. The only thing I value is my family...which I could never disown, and which I can't help but belong to.

I think "dismembered" is exactly the appropriate word to use when talking about severing church membership. I am not taking you to task for your comments by any means for it is our relationship to the Lord that is the key to our salvation. However, my personal opinion is that the "church" is to be far more than a club or an organization (of the heart or otherwise). If membership were viewed more regularly as being a part of the Body of Christ perhaps our connection would be far more vital. Perhaps we would view our fellow body members more like the brothers and sisters in Christ, the close family that God wants us to be. Perhaps some wouldn't view those on the church rosters so much as potential donors and see, instead, the need to be accountable and respectful to those who are moved to support. And maybe, there would be more of a spirit of kinship that would allow some to put aside image and accept responsibility for sin instead of suing their brothers in a selfish attempt to keep that false image intact.

[LaurenceD]

Good post PB, I agree with your sentiments. I think there's far too much legal posturing going on with membership security. The name should be on that other book, and we should never give cause to wonder who else is on it.

[Aletheia]

I posted elsewhere the following: A few months ago or so I received a letter from an ally of Danny that indicated that he would sue a/the church, and even sue those outside of the U.S. That might help illuminate his comment on ClubAdventist.com that they had filed suit against two people to begin with.

Dangerous guy, that Danny is.

I wonder, would the anonymous donor bankroll a suit by Danny against a/the church? Hopefully not. That seems like it would be going way too far. As if it hasn't gone way too far already, like back on Dec. 31, 2006.

As you are repeating the same exact thing in multiple places, and threads...

again:


More false accusations and libel... and just look at all those coming behind you to repeat this as if it's fact and condemn and find fault with D.S. based on a lie.

Why would an "ally of Danny" write something so absurd?

What possible reason would he have to sue either the Church or the conference?

Give it up, Bob! And look in your mirror, you are the dangerous one here.

I just looked the letter over again, and it was pretty clear that a conference could end up getting sued.

[Seraphim7]

I posted elsewhere the following: A few months ago or so I received a letter from an ally of Danny that indicated that he would sue a/the church, and even sue those outside of the U.S. That might help illuminate his comment on ClubAdventist.com that they had filed suit against two people to begin with.

Dangerous guy, that Danny is.

I wonder, would the anonymous donor bankroll a suit by Danny against a/the church? Hopefully not. That seems like it would be going way too far. As if it hasn't gone way too far already, like back on Dec. 31, 2006.

The " brother", and those who support such mess, sound like they could really benefit from some SERIOUS phsychological help.

[LaurenceD]

Libel?

Great!

Thanks for posting that. You continually demonstrate a shallowness in understanding the difference between street language and legal terminology.

[Pickle]

LaurenceD, in your opinion, is Cindy's essentially calling me a liar by denying what the letter I have clearly says, is that libel? Do Cindy's statements demonstrate recklessness or malice? Are they false and defamatory?

[mozart]

"belonging" to organizations of the heart is fairly meaningless, and probably one of the greatest of human weaknesses. I draw zero security from belonging to clubs, organizations, etc. The only thing I value is my family...which I could never disown, and which I can't help but belong to.

Amen here.

This post has been edited by mozart: May 12 2007, 09:55 PM

[LaurenceD]

Pickle: I posted elsewhere the following: A few months ago or so I received a letter from an ally of Danny that indicated that he would sue a/the church, and even sue those outside of the U.S. That might help illuminate his comment on ClubAdventist.com that they had filed suit against two people to begin with.

Dangerous guy, that Danny is.

I wonder, would the anonymous donor bankroll a suit by Danny against a/the church? Hopefully not. That seems like it would be going way too far. As if it hasn't gone way too far already, like back on Dec. 31, 2006.

Aletheia: As you are repeating the same exact thing in multiple places, and threads...

again:

More false accusations and libel... and just look at all those coming behind you to repeat this as if it's fact and condemn and find fault with D.S. based on a lie.

Why would an "ally of Danny" write something so absurd?

What possible reason would he have to sue either the Church or the conference?

Give it up, Bob! And look in your mirror, you are the dangerous one here.

Pickle: LaurenceD, in your opinion, is Cindy's essentially calling me a liar by denying what the letter I have clearly says, is that libel? Do Cindy's statements demonstrate recklessness or malice? Are they false and defamatory?

If indeed it is true you received such a letter, or even if you believe it's true, and if by "he" you are referring to Danny when you say he indicated he would sue so and so, and if you feel you have made a fair comment on a matter of public interest, and if you feel, by doing so, that you have been personally harmed (emotional or otherwise) by Aletheia's use of the terms, "false accusations and libel" and "based on a lie," and you believe the statement was made with actual malice, then the correct answer to all your questions is yes, this would be "per se" defamation of your character, ie, if we can confirm all the elements of the cause, and the court agrees.

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea

While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted. -expertlaw

[Panama_Pete]

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small.

Yes, defending against a defamation suit can sometimes be difficult. This is especially true if the source of the information is a news organization. The courts in Minnesota, for instance, seem to grant news organizations the right to maintain the anonymity of sources as noted in the following cases:

Courts have applied the privilege to news organizations in Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc. (KARE 11), 557 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. Ap. 1997) (television station); McNeilus v. Corporate Report, Inc., 21 Media L. Rep. 2171, 2174-75 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Dodge County, 1993) (magazine publisher); Aerial Burials, Inc. v. Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co., 8 Media L. Rep. 1653 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 1982) (newspaper). Cases involving news organizations, but denying protection for other reasons, include Heaslip v. Freeman, 511 N.WY.2d 21 (Minn. App. 1994) (photographs), rev. denied (Minn. 1994).

The McNeilus notation listed above seems to have concerned an article in Corporate Report Minnesota:

http://www.transparency.cz/vivaetika/infoc...m/prameny/t.htm This is the bibliography listing for the article that seems to be the news article referred to in McNeilus v. Corporate Report, Inc.:

"The hardest man in the cement mixer business: Garwin McNeilus does more than compete ferociously. His detractors say he will stop at nothing. (Cover Story) by Denise A. Kotula il v22 Corporate Report- Minnesota March '91 p28(8)"

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: May 13 2007, 09:59 AM

[PrincessDrRe]

If the suit is just about copyright infringment then why would anything else be relevant? so not sure what on Danny's part will be exposed. seems this suit is just to intimidate joy and pickle and to keep them distracted and preoccupied on their defense and to cost them money.
We should keep them in prayer.

That's the point. No one actually "knows" what is "out there" and when it comes to a lawsuit - discovery is about asking for EVERYTHING...even if it ain't relevant (at that time) to aggravate, bother, and thus lengthen the process. E'ry now and den - a judge will slip up and allow something that really isn't of relevance...and once they do....it's all out and open.....
KWIM?

LaurenceD, in your opinion, is Cindy's essentially calling me a liar by denying what the letter I have clearly says, is that libel? Do Cindy's statements demonstrate recklessness or malice? Are they false and defamatory?

All that and some other werds we can't say on the berd....

[Noahswife]

Yes, defending against a defamation suit can sometimes be difficult. This is especially true if the source of the information is a news organization. The courts in Minnesota, for instance, seem to grant news organizations the right to maintain the anonymity of sources as noted in the following cases:

Courts have applied the privilege to news organizations in Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc. (KARE 11), 557 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. Ap. 1997) (television station); McNeilus v. Corporate Report, Inc., 21 Media L. Rep. 2171, 2174-75 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Dodge County, 1993) (magazine publisher); Aerial Burials, Inc. v. Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co., 8 Media L. Rep. 1653 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 1982) (newspaper). Cases involving news organizations, but denying protection for other reasons, include Heaslip v. Freeman, 511 N.WY.2d 21 (Minn. App. 1994) (photographs), rev. denied (Minn. 1994).

The McNeilus notation listed above seems to have concerned an article in Corporate Report Minnesota:

http://www.transparency.cz/vivaetika/infoc...m/prameny/t.htm This is the bibliography listing for the article that seems to be the news article referred to in McNeilus v. Corporate Report, Inc.:

"The hardest man in the cement mixer business: Garwin McNeilus does more than compete ferociously. His detractors say he will stop at nothing. (Cover Story) by Denise A. Kotula il v22 Corporate Report- Minnesota March '91 p28(8)"

Any comments on this Eirene?

nw
C"i"

PS....thanks PP for someone else's opinion in writing confirming what my instincts/gut tell me about this mess.

This post has been edited by Noahswife: May 13 2007, 11:43 AM

[Eirene]

Any comments on this Eirene?

nw
C"i"

PS....thanks PP for someone else's opinion in writing confirming what my instincts/gut tell me about this mess.

If this is supposed to be an indication that our self declared AU reporter will be exempt from certain "discovery" issues, Don't make me laugh.
If, instead, you are asking for my comments on what was said about McNeilus, I fail to see the relevence. Big business is a dog eat dog world. Seems he has the umm"guts" to handle it.

[Panama_Pete]

Big business is a dog eat dog world. Seems he has the umm"guts" to handle it.

Are you saying there is no Mending Broken People theme playing in the background amongst those 14 lawyers in Minneapolis allegedly being subsidized by the mysterious, unknown benefactor?

When all is said and done it's really a theme called Dog Eat Dog?

(Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV) What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again ; there is nothing new under the sun.

Pete

[PeacefulBe]

If this is supposed to be an indication that our self declared AU reporter will be exempt from certain "discovery" issues, Don't make me laugh.
If, instead, you are asking for my comments on what was said about McNeilus, I fail to see the relevence. Big business is a dog eat dog world. Seems he has the umm"guts" to handle it.

Hmmm,

Are big businessmen who are disciples of Christ really supposed to be "dog eat dog"? Are we counseled to conduct our businesses in such a manner? If Jesus was the CEO of a company would He have the "guts" to operate in a "dod eat dog" manner? Where is justice, love and mercy in this scenerio? Can a man serve both God and Mammon?

[Panama_Pete]

Hmmm,

Are big businessmen who are disciples of Christ really supposed to be "dog eat dog"? Are we counseled to conduct our businesses in such a manner? If Jesus was the CEO of a company would He have the "guts" to operate in a "dod eat dog" manner? Where is justice, love and mercy in this scenerio? Can a man serve both God and Mammon?

I agree, PB:


(Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NKJV) Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all. {14} For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.

Pete