Scribd
Upload
884 views3 pages

Opening Statement

The opening statement summarizes a case involving Janice Paul, who disassociated herself from the Jehovah's Witness congregation in 1981. After being denied participation in social gatherings, she has brought a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the church. The defense argues that while Paul is emotionally distressed, the church's actions do not constitute outrageous conduct required for legal liability. The defense aims to provide context on Jehovah's Witness practices and beliefs, including a history of oppression, to explain their policy of shunning former members like Paul. The ultimate issue is whether the church's actions satisfy the legal requirements for the tort claim, not a judgment of its theology.

Uploaded by

api-272409624
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
884 views3 pages

Opening Statement

The opening statement summarizes a case involving Janice Paul, who disassociated herself from the Jehovah's Witness congregation in 1981. After being denied participation in social gatherings, she has brought a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the church. The defense argues that while Paul is emotionally distressed, the church's actions do not constitute outrageous conduct required for legal liability. The defense aims to provide context on Jehovah's Witness practices and beliefs, including a history of oppression, to explain their policy of shunning former members like Paul. The ultimate issue is whether the church's actions satisfy the legal requirements for the tort claim, not a judgment of its theology.

Uploaded by

api-272409624
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Opening Statement

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.


In November 1975, Janice Paul wrote a letter to her Jehovahs Witness
congregation informing them that she no longer wished to be affiliated with them.
At the time, a person taking these steps was classified as disassociated.
Disassociation was a voluntary removal of oneself from the church; this was
distinguished from disfellowship, the forcible removal of a member of the
congregation by the church. In 1981, the church decided that disassociation, which
had previously allowed for some contact with congregation members, was now the
same as disfellowshipa classification prohibiting any contact with members. After
being turned away from social gatherings held by members of the church, Miss Paul
has brought this charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress against my
clients.
While this is no doubt a sad set of circumstances for the plaintiff, there can be
no legal recourse available to her in this matter. Is she emotionally distressed?
Certainly. But an examination of the law and the facts of this case will clearly show
that this emotional distress is not actionable and that no liability extends to my
clients. In order to satisfy the requirements of outrageous conduct, the plaintiff
would have to prove not only that she suffered distress because of action taken by
my clients, but that my clients intended to cause her emotional distress or were
reckless in their regard for her emotional health. The evidence you will see will

bear out the claim that this distress was not intentionally caused, there was no
recklessness, and so my clients are not liable.
It is likely that most of you are unfamiliar with the Jehovahs Witnesses, their
faith and practices, and their history; I can tell you that I certainly was before taking
this case. You may also have preconceived notions about the faith, things youve
heard or read, or conclusions youve drawn on your own. I ask you now to put those
preconceptions aside. You may find the practice of shunning archaic and cruel, out
of step with modernity or the tenants of your own belief system. These judgments
must also be put aside in the interest of fairness and justice. At issue here is not
whether you agree with the theology or faith practices of the Jehovahs Witnesses;
this case is about the right of any religious group to establish and enforce rules and
regulations by which it can govern itself and its adherents.
The Jehovahs Witnesses are, relative to other Christian denominations, a
small group; they have historically been an embattled faith that has been led, both
by its theology and by its desire for self-preservation, to control certain aspects of
its membership.
An example of the Witnesses shared history of oppression is the little-known
fact that over 11,000 Jehovahs Witnesses were held in Nazi concentration camps.
Many were also jailed when they claimed conscientious objector status during wars.
I mention these historical issues not because I want you to feel sorry for my clients,
but so I can give you a greater understanding of why they have and continue to be
skeptical and wary of the world outside their faith. The law does not require that I
give you a reason as to why this faith has put into practice the regulations that it

has; I am only obliged to show that their actions do not satisfy the requirements of
outrageous conduct. However, I think it might be useful to you in your deliberations
if you can learn a little bit about this group.
The Witnesses have constructed for themselves a closed world; their social
and religious lives are utterly entwined. It seems Miss Paul would like to enjoy the
social life shared by the group while at the same time shrugging off the religious life
to which she knows its attached. Again, whether or not we feel bad for Miss Paul is
not the issue. A religion is effectively a private club; Miss Paul willingly left this club
and now expects to be able to still participate in its activities. Is she suffering
emotional distress? Im sure she is. To be separated from the social network and
friends that she knew through most of her life must indeed be heartbreaking. But
the fact remains that the Jehovahs Witnesses do not have this policy in order to
intentionally injure people. They are required by their specific theology to separate
themselves from those the faith deems not of our sort. For the Witnesses, what is
at stake is nothing less than eternal life and the future of all mankind. Whether or
not you share this theological assertion, you must agree that this belief is protected.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy