RECOGNITION OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

[Arauna]

On 11/10/2019 at 1:29 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

because they are naturally stupid, and or cowards.

Not true. Many soldiers have deployed and later became Witnesses. It is a "choice" to not kill others. My brother was tortured in prison because he refused to assist the apartheid government to kill people. The brothers treated badly in Korean prisons for refusal to learn war are not cowards.

And he is not stupid either.  I will not go into his academic credentials credentials before he became a witness

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 11/9/2019 at 4:29 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

...this even makes the sheep VERY nervous, but the reason many of them are sheep is not a desire to be peaceable with all men, as far as it depends upon them ... but because they are naturally stupid, and or cowards.

If you will refer to what I actually said, Arauna, I said "many" ..... not all.

I faced 5 years in Federal Prison during the Vietnam War, and there were as many reasons why different people became conscientious objectors, as there were who became soldiers.

[Arauna]

21 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

different people became conscientious objectors, as there were who became soldiers.

Agreed, but they are not cowards to go up against a powerful machine as a government.  Many people in Germany hated the Nazis but went along with the propaganda and went to war because they were the true sheep/cowards and were afraid to face prison. 

[Matthew9969]

This guy is a coward for allowing elders to force him to kick his 15 year old daughter out of the house.

[DespicableME]

English law was introduced as a means of an argument. While (nemo iudex in causa sua) and (audi alteram partem) is being applied by secular courts, those courts will have to define the law of Natural Justice.

This provision was enacted to promote public confidence in the LEGAL SYSTEM. I don’t see where church bylaws will get such traction in the highest court of Canada that will be set to hear common law arguments.

Remember, prosecutors will need a good argument when scripture clearly states not to have anything to do with unrepentant people.

The other, how well the condition of drunkenness because of kicking out the daughter is yet to be proven by known facts. So far, that is his story. Undoubtedly mentioned for losing part of his business. He will have to show without bias he wasn’t going to do that to his daughter had it not been for whatever caused him to do so. The fact he was “disfellowshipped” is one factor. Another factor was the “daughter”, a publisher, an unbaptized publisher or just an attendee. Some should consider the case in the USA of Jack Phillips. Canada’s prevailing laws would need to change in order to favor WALL.

This is the reason “Randy Wall” lost the first case.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/31/jehovahs-witnesses-win-right-at-top-court-to-shun-a-church-member/

[TrueTomHarley]

On 11/11/2019 at 3:11 PM, Matthew9969 said:

If I read that right, the elders expected him to kick his 15 year old daughter out of the house?

You didn’t read it right.

On 11/12/2019 at 1:30 PM, 4Jah2me said:

I would have thought he would have had legal contracts for his business which would mean that customers would be under legal contract to continue business as usual. It does show the lack of love from JW's though, if they deliberately caused problems to his business. 

Of course. When I was in business, I always made legal contracts with my customers that they remain customers no matter what. I made it illegal for them to take their business elsewhere.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You didn’t read it right.

Of course. When I was in business, I always made legal contracts with my customers that they remain customers no matter what. I made it illegal for them to take their business elsewhere.

Once again you make fun of my comment.

My point was that if contracts / agreements were in place that they would have to be completed until such an agreement came to it's official end. End of contract.  Would it have been right for 'brothers' to break off an agreement part way through a 'deal' using the shunning excuse as a reason ?  Would that be what God sees as just and true action ? I think not.

[TrueTomHarley]

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Once again you make fun of my comment.

Well....you have to think through what you say before you say it. If you say something dumb and present it as accusatory fact, what do you expect?

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

My point was that if contracts / agreements were in place that they would have to be completed until such an agreement came to it's official end. End of contract.

The guy was a realtor. Do realtors make deals for life? Of course if he was in the midst of a contract, we could expect that contract to be respected—otherwise he could sue whoever broke it for damages.

It is his repeat business that suffered, not his individual contracts, which only last a few weeks, or at most, months.

I have used several realtors in my lifetime. Not one courtroom said I had to keep the same one forever.

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

My point was that if contracts / agreements were in place that they would have to be completed 

There are a great many “ifs” and “seems” in your accusations. Why don’t you nail them down with more certainty before going on the offensive with them?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Well....you have to think through what you say before you say it. If you say something dumb and present it as accusatory fact, what do you expect?

The guy was a realtor. Do realtors make deals for life? Of course if he was in the midst of a contract, we could expect that contract to be respected—otherwise he could sue whoever broke it for damages.

It is his repeat business that suffered, not his individual contracts, which only last a few weeks, or at most, months.

I have used several realtors in my lifetime. Not one courtroom said I had to keep the same one forever.

There are a great many “ifs” and “seems” in your accusations. Why don’t you nail them down with more certainty before going on the offensive with them?

OK Mr Harley, you win. 

[TrueTomHarley]

20 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

OK Mr Harley, you win. 

That is very gracious of you. 

Upon reading your words I tried to enter the kitchen to pour myself a cup of coffee, but I got my big head stuck in the door.

Moreover, (I would not expect you to know this) this is all the reasoning of the Appeals court. It was overturned in the Supreme Court (Canada). JTR is just weaving this thread around the verdict that he wishes had prevailed.