Legal actions against RSE Step 3

Please support the RSE whistleblowers and citizen journalism and voice your concerns here. Act collectively and hold JZ Knight and the Thurston County public officials accountable for fraud and human rights abuse at RSE. This is about accountability and pursuing justice.
Qui tacet consentire
Ockham
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Legal actions against RSE Step 3

Unread post by Ockham »

-Moderator comment-
This topic thread had been split from
EMF View topic - RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1522

Thank you Ockham :idea:
_________________________________________________

It is time Judy's posterior hide should be nailed to the wall with respect to ignoring safety, allowing people to be permanently injured or die on her property as a result. There is no question JZK inc. has been operating a large scale business on the location for several decades. JZK Inc. itself has years of self produced literature proclaiming as much and boasting that as many as thousands of people at a time attend its events.

This is a sensitive subject for me because I worked with a young man who died at work and would very likely still be here if the employer had spent a few hundred dollars to have an AED. There were staff members with licensed EMT training, who administered CPR, but lacked the equipment and had to wait for the community fire department, which was too long a wait.

It is about time Judy Knight and JZK Inc. are held to the standards of ethics and compliance applicable to the business that they in reality operate on the property.
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by joe sz »

Ockham

I hear you..
but tell that to the feds re leaders of Scientology, Landmark, Unification Church, Miracle of Love, John-Roger, etc for 3,000 or more "new religious movements" and bible cults.

emf may not realize how pervasive this problem is and the frustration it causes. like I told one reporter, you may as well try to legislate against bad marriages.

as JZ deteriorates with age, more members will feel and admit the deterioration of the Ramtha personality and slink away into the night wondering what hit them, but a few will continue to tell their stories. To those few, welcome :!:
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by David McCarthy »

like I told one reporter, you may as well try to legislate against bad marriages.
But there is legislation against bad marriages Joe..
The Defense of Marriage Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
How about...
the Marriage Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act
Elsewhere in the world…
UK ministers have unveiled proposals which they believe will end forced marriages,
The bill "Legislation" would, for the first time in the UK, make it a criminal offense to breach laws protecting people from being forced into getting wed against their will
BBC NEWS | UK | New laws against forced marriages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7747267.stm
I understand that legislation has not stamped out drunk drivers but it has certainly kept a whole bunch of these drunks off the roads and saved countless lives.
RSE is an unlicensed bus driven by an unlicensed drunk driver.
Beyond all my blustering… ;-)
I think something should be done and can be done to take JZ Knight and her RSE bus off the streets.

We will see..

David
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by joe sz »

david,
I am not merely being cynical here. since no one can predict the future, but prosecuting any abusive spouse or cult leader before an act of violence, misdemeanor, or felony occurs is well nigh impossible. It was well known and reported by ex-members of Peoples Temple that Jim Jones was conditoning the group with mock suicide rituals many years before the disaster at Jonestown. Leo J Ryan herocially went far beyond the call of duty for a congressman and went down to check it out. Unfortunately, he may have stimulated the fire that lit the fuse for the mass murder/suicide. We always have to ask: Jim Jones was not well, he could have died in a year or two and left the cult in disarray, but would mos have lived had he not done anything? perhaps. we will never know.

In Heaven's Gate case, no one was attacking that silly little group save for a few disgruntled ex-members and family members that made little public noise...the cult made up the end scene all by themselves, very peacefully, and joined the Hale Bop comet starship in their non-corporeal "vehicles."

That's basically my point. Prosecuters need clear evidence of a crime, not merely spiritual craziness, corporate greed, and angry ex-members, to run a case.

yes, i would like to see JZ in court. Yet that in itself would guarantee nothing even if she spent time in jail. True believers would continue to rally around the cause, mind control would remain, and the cult could actually strengthen at the core as a reaction to legal "persecution."

Look at how much control Warren Jeffs still has behind bars..very few defections as a result.
freemysoul
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:40 am

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by freemysoul »

I understand what both you, David and Joe, are saying here, and it is quite a conundrum. On one hand, here is JZ Knight, purposefully exploiting her 'students', some to death, but no one is holding a gun to their heads, according to the legal system. On the other hand, rse is a direct cause of the people who attend there's mental illness, financial collapse and physical destruction, and it could be proven in a civil court of law by a capable attorney, that jz knight and her 'school' are responsible at least 51%. And I completely understand your comparisons of RSE to Peoples Temple and Heaven's Gate Joe, for the most part, all of those involved, apart from some disgruntled in Guyana at Jim Jones compound, who left with Congressman Ryan, sparking the mass suicides, were there of their own volition. Because our government allows such religious freedoms, and freedoms period for that matter, people like JZ Knight, Jim Jones, Marshal Applewhite, etc., are allowed to do what they will, say what they will, and convince people to do the outrageous, up to and including mass suicide, out of protection of our First Amendment rights.
What is frustrating to me, and I know others who have left rse injured, misled, and scarred forever, is to watch this cycle of abuse and obvious mind control continue to destroy others, who don't have the same understanding that I do now. It makes me sick to watch JZ Knight's actions purposefully and maliciously destroy the same people she claims to be helping, and not have much recourse to save them, let alone stop her. I hope you are wrong about it being next to impossible to stop JZ before she convinces thousands of people to kill themselves Joe, because if she wanted them dead, she need only speak the words. My God, look what she has convinced them to do already. The sad part for me, is that I can understand the reality and truth in what you both are saying. No District Attorney in Washington is going to go after JZ because of the financial and political ramifications, until the public outcry overwhelms the cost of both. However, finding enough money to compete with JZ's legal juggernaut to launch a civil suit, which could drag on for a decade or more, seems almost as far fetched. Regardless of how this seems right now, until my last breath and with every ounce of me, I will haunt JZ Knight with everything I have. She better hope like hell that I never win the lottery, or inherit millions from some unknown relative, because I would spend every penny to destroy the evil empire she has created around perverting everything people find beautiful about life, love and God, and extinguishing the beautiful light that had once shown brightly from people who trusted her.
User avatar
Sad Grandfather
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: Joe Reeves, Carthage, Mississippi http://joesue.com/
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by Sad Grandfather »

Maybe if enough former "students", who were harmed by her, were willing to come forward, it might be possible to file a class action lawsuit, and with enough participation, a good lawyer, or team of lawyers might take it on contingency.

Unfortunately, it seems that most former students just want to go away and try to forget the whole thing, rather than go public and admit their failings, in falling for the scam, and trying to hold Judy responsible for her part in perpetuating the scam.
Down with Judith Hampton Knight!
ex
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:18 am

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by ex »

SG: after i left rse it took me about two years to figure out what happened to me and my family. i still defended rse and its "good" sides. i would have thought not being intolerant and let everybody do what they wanna do. emf came along and helped me to understand the amount of manipulation which went on in me. there r people who r 2-4 years current and than drop out. they don't make the move to yelm and see this as a great time in their life never get the urge to look what they were rely doing. there r a lot who wanna just leave and think they can salvage enough "good" experiences they never look back most of them separate ramtha's and jz's doings. there are a few who get heavy payouts to silence them. this is the group who could deliver substantial evidence. their is only a handful + some who try to expose jz and warn others, as you can see on the board. even great neglect doesn't bring a self help guru in appropriate trouble.

FM: nothing to ad well said.
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by joe sz »

class action suits are not criminal proceedings. they are about money not jail time. whoever launches a class action suit with their millions of dollars will be a person in a glass house. we have been thru this before--who out there is willing to put their lives on hold for many years while putting up with the nasty tactics that an unscrupulous JZ/Ramtha lawyer will use????
Ockham
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by Ockham »

What a great post Freemysoul! Perfectly stated. Thank you very much.
Rooster
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:30 pm

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by Rooster »

Freemysoul your response is wonderful! Well said.
I also agree with David. That is why we will all be watching, waiting and never give up. Something may happen or someone can step forward. No reaason to make life easy for someone that has no respect or regaurd for what she has done to others.
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by joe sz »

okay. here's one start for a solution. not one person that left RSE has published a book (which is easy to do nowadays thru many self-publishing options like amazon) narrating their "experience" and why they left. No need to morph into an expert on cults here or become a preachy pundit about "mind control" (like me :roll: ) There are some good examples out there and some really bad ones. What is stopping anyone from doing at least that much?

ex-member books that are decently written stimulate media interest as well as legal. I suggested this before: the easiest way is compile a number of chapters with essays by 10 or 12 ex-members. as long as most are identified a few can be anonymous. If a JZ legal hireling threatens to or does sue the authors, then a counter suit can lead to further options like class action. A cat fight like this can bring all this muck up to the public surface to bring on the media. Reporters would jump on this story for major magazines with Ramtha's notorious past--all the movie stars involved, etc. Someone with money can find a cause to support because it is well-stated.

Maybe somebody already has a book ready?? 8) :?:
User avatar
Sad Grandfather
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: Joe Reeves, Carthage, Mississippi http://joesue.com/
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by Sad Grandfather »

David McCarthy wrote: I understand this is something you would not participate in Joe, and why should you? A class action lawsuit has not and will not be taken off the EMF table. :idea: David
Actually, I would be glad to participate, but I have received no prersonal damage from Judy, which might disqualify me. I have suffered considerable grief from the loss of my family. I would definitely enjoy a good cat fight if it was structured so that I would fit in, and I have absolutely no fear of Judy. I have no fear of being sued, since I live on Soc. Sec. and Mil. Ret., which I don't think she could touch, and any assets I have (very few) would disappear in a flash. I would defend myself, and even if she got a judgment against me, I would ridicule her publically while she paid her lawyers with her own money.

There are actually two kinds of people who are not afraid - Those with unlimited resourses, like Judy, and those with little left to lose, like me. Bring it on!
Down with Judith Hampton Knight!
Ockham
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by Ockham »

A person licensed to practice law in the state of Washington would have to give a legal opinion. My personal opinion is that for a class action suit against JZK, Inc. to succeed, a clear commonality of interest of the aggrieved parties would have to be demonstrated to the court with jurisdiction. The substance of the tort would probably have to be breach of promise or negligence causing damages that could be quantified and shown to be borne approximately equally or quantifiably proportionally by the members of the proposed class.

A few Examples might be:

1. 'Ramtha,' was promised to address the attendees at an event, but failed to make an appearance.

2. Attendees were promised, but did not receive a specific lesson or training materials.

3. Attendees were instructed at a JZK, Inc. function to perform an activity that can be shown to unsafe or unhealthy, and it directly resulted in the attendees becoming injured or sick.

For a suit to succeed, it would be helpful to be able to demonstrate to a person without specific prior education that JZK unquestioningly either failed to deliver on a specific promise, or JZK caused attendees to be injured.

A problem I see is that JZK rarely makes any specific promise about what training will be given or who will appear at its events. The events have exceedingly generic titles such as, "all group follow-up," and I've never seen a published agenda or curriculum. About all JZK promises is that attendees may occupy space at its events unless JZK arbitrarily decides to expel at JZK's discretion anybody JZK sees fit to expel. Note that even though attendees are asked to sign the participation agreement, JZK is not absolved of negligent behavior.
User avatar
Sad Grandfather
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: Joe Reeves, Carthage, Mississippi http://joesue.com/
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by Sad Grandfather »

(3) That would seem to include anyone injured in the tank, or doing diciplines and those who relapsed into acoholism or was messed up by the prozac, etc.

How about the survivors of the woman killed in her UG, the tank, etc?

To sue for fraud, concerning promises of health, wealth, or aging, I guess the defense would be that the victims just failed in their enlightenment? :roll: :twisted:
Down with Judith Hampton Knight!
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by joe sz »

we can revisit US vs Ballard, a fraud trial involving channeling and Ramtha's Great White Brotherhood that extended from 1940-46. The 1946 final judgement [case was thrown out on technicality of not enough women in jury, after all that!]
Guy Ballard died 1939 of painful arterial sclerosis in a Chicago hospital, so only Edna Ballard and her son Donald [Eudonia] and a few elders in the I AM cult faced jail time--no one ever went to jail. The I AM could not use the US post to ship their materials and lessons till 1956...after all that!

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=187

U.S. Supreme Court
BALLARD v. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 187 (1946)
329 U.S. 187

BALLARD et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 37.

Argued Oct. 15, 1946.
Decided Dec. 9, 1946.

[329 U.S. 187, 188] Messrs. Roland Rich Woolley and Ralph C. Curren, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.

Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here for the second time. It involves the indictment and conviction of respondents for using, and conspiring to use, the mails t defraud. Criminal Code [329 U.S. 187, 189] s 215, 18 U.S.C. 338, 18 U.S.C.A. 338.; Criminal Code 37, 18 U.S.C. 88, 18 U.S.C.A. 88. The fraudulent scheme charged was the promotion of the I Am movement, which was alleged to be a fraudulent religious organization, through the use of the mails. The nature of the movement and the facts surrounding its origin and growth are summarized in our prior opinion. 322 U.S. 78 , 64 S.Ct. 882. It is sufficient here to say that petitioners were found guilty on a charge by the trial judge which withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of their religious beliefs or doctrines. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and granted a new trial, holding it was error to withhold those questions from the jury. 9 Cir., 138 F.2d 540. We in turn, reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals and sustained the District Court in that ruling. Petitioners argued, however, that even though the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of conviction on that ground, its action was justified on other distinct grounds. But the Circuit Court of Appeals had not passed on those other questions; and we did not have the benefit of its views on them. We accordingly deemed it more appropriate to remand the cause to that court so that it might first pass on the questions reserved.

On the remand the Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed the judgment of conviction without discussion of the issues raised. On a petition for rehearing, which was denied, the Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion which discussed some but not all of the questions which had been reserved. 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 941. We granted the petition for certiorari because of the serious questions concerning the administration of criminal justice which were raised.

We are met at the outset with the concession that women were not included in the panel of grand and petit jurors in the Southern District of California where the [329 U.S. 187, 190] indictment was returned and the trial had; that they were intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel. 1 This issue was raised by a motion to quash the indictment and by a challenge to the array of the petit jurors because of intentional and systematic exclusion of women from the panel. Both motions were denied and their denial was assigned as error on appeal. The jury question has been in issue at each stage of the proceedings, except the first time that the case was before us. At that time the point was not assigned or argued. But the case was here at the instance of the United States, not at the instance of the present petitioners. As we have said, there were other issues in the case obscured by the question brought here by the United States and which had not been passed upon below or argued before this Court. Consequently, when we remanded the case for consideration of the remaining issues by the Circuit Court of Appeals, the jury issue was argued. The Circuit Court of Appeals did not hold that it had been waived. That court passed upon the issue, concluding that there was no error in the exclusion of women from the panel. 152 F.2d at page 944, and see dissent at page 953. Under these circumstances we cannot say (and the government does not suggest) that petitioners have lost the right to urge the question here. Moreover, in this case, as in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 168 , 169 S., the error, though not presented here on the first argument, appears on the face of the record before us. And see Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 16 , 61 S.Ct. 422, 427.

Congress has provided that jurors in a federal court shall have the same qualifications as those of the highest court of law in the State. Judicial Code 275, 28 U.S. 338 ; Criminal Code 37, 18 U.S.C. 88, C. 411, 28 .S.C.A. 411. [329 U.S. 187, 191] This provision applies to grand as well as petit juries. 2 Congress also has prohibited disqualification of citizens from jury service 'on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.' 3 It has required that jurors shall be chosen 'without reference to party affiliations'. 4 It has provided that jurors shall be returned from such parts of the district as the court may direct 'so as to be most favorable to an impartial trial, and so as not to incur an unnecessary expense, or unduly burden the citizens of any part of the district'.5 None of the specific exemptions6 which it has created is along the lines of sex.

These provisions reflect a design to make the jury 'a cross-section of the community' and truly representative of it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 86 , 62 S.Ct. 457, 472.

In California, as in most States,7 women are eligible for jury service under local law. Code of Civil Procedure, 198. The system of jury selection which Congress has adopted contemplated, therefore, that juries in the federal courts sitting in such States would be representative of both sexes. If women are excluded, only half of the available population is drawn upon for jury service. To put the [329 U.S. 187, 192] matter another way, Congress has referred to state law merely to determine who is qualified to act as a juror. Whether the method of selecting a jury in the federal court from those qualified is or is not proper is a question of federal law. 8 Glasser v. United States, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 85, 86, 62 S.Ct. at pages 471, 472.

In Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 , 66 S.Ct. 984, we were presented with a similar problem. It was a civil case which had been removed to the district court on the ground of diversity of citizenship and involved a question of the liability of a common carrier to a passenger. All persons who worked for a daily wage had been deliberately and intentionally excluded from the jury lists. We held, in the exercise of our power of supervision over the administration of justice in the federal courts, see McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 , 63 S.Ct. 608, that the plaintiff's motion to strike the panel should have been granted. The gist of our ruling is contained in the following statement from the opinion in the Thiel case:

'The American tradition of trial by jury, considered in connection with either cr minal or civil proceedings, necessarily contemplates an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community. ... This does not mean, of course, that every jury must contain representatives of all the economic, social, religious, racial, political and geographical groups of the community; frequently such complete representation would be impossible. But it does mean that prospec- [329 U.S. 187, 193] tive jurors shall be selected by court officials without systematic and intentional exclusion of any of these groups. Recognition must be given to the fact that those eligible for jury service are to be found in every stratum of society. Jury competence is an individual rather than a group or class matter. That fact lies at the very heart of the jury system. To disregard it is to open the door to class distinctions and dicriminations which are abhorrent to the democratic ideals of trial by jury.' 328 U.S. 220 , 66 S.Ct. 985.
We conclude that the purposeful and systematic exclusion of women from the panel in this case was a departure from the scheme of jury selection which Congress adopted and that, as in the Thiel case, we should exercise our power of supervision over the administration of justice in the federal courts, McNabb v. United States, supra, to correct an error which permeated this proceeding.

It is said, however, that an all male panel drawn from the various groups within a community will be as truly representative as if women were included. The thought is that the factors which tend to influence the action of women are the same as those which influence the action of men- personality, background, economic status-and not sex. 9 Yet it is not enough to say that women when sitting as jurors neither act nor tend to act as a class. Men likewise do not act as a class. But if the shoe were on the other foot, who would claim that a jury was truly representative of the community if all men were intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel? The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influence one on the other is among the imponderables. [329 U.S. 187, 194] 10 To insulate the courtroom from either may not in a given case make an iota of difference. Yet a flavor, a distinct quality is lost if either sex is excluded. The exclusion of one may indeed make the jury less representative of the community than would be true if an economic or racial group were excluded.

The present case involves a prosecution of a mother and her son for the promotion of an allegedly fraudulent religious program. Judge Denman in his dissent below stated:

'In the average family from which jurors are drawn, the souls of children in their infant and early adolescent bodies receive the first and most lasting teaching of religious truths from their mothers. In the same families the major social function of men is concerned with the creation of material things, largely food and clothing and housing of the children's bodies.
'In the public schools over ninety-five per cent of the primary and grammar school teachers are women. In the churches of all religions the numbers of women attendants on divine service vastly exceed men. The one large and vital religious group created in America since Joseph Smith is that of the Christian Scientists founded by a woman, Mary Baker Eddy.
'... It matters not that from my viewpoint there is ... testimony of a conspiracy so mean and vile that it warrants some of the strongest strictures of the prosecution. I am not a woman juror sitting in the Ballard trial, who is the mother of five children at whose knee have been instilled in them the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by Mrs. Eddy. [329 U.S. 187, 195] 'Well could a sensitive woman, highly spiritual in character, rationalize all the money income acquired by Mrs. Ballard as being devoted to the teachings of the same Jesus as are the profits of the trust created by Mrs. Eddy for the Christian Science Monitor.' 152 F.2d at pages 951, 952.
The point illustrates that the exclusion of women from jury panels may at times be highly prejudicial to the defendants. But reversible error does not depend on a showing of prejudice in an individual case. 11 The evil lies in the admitted exclusion of an eligible class or group in the community in disregard of the prescribed standards of jury selection. The systematic and intentional exclusion of women, like the exclusion of a racial group, Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 , 61 S.Ct. 164, or an economic or social class, Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, deprives the jury system of the broad base it was designed by Congress to have in our democratic society. It is a departure from the statutory scheme. As well stated in United States v. Roemig, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 857, 862, 'Such action is operative to destory the basic democracy and classlessness of jury personnel.' It 'does not accord to the defendant the type of jury to which the law entitles him. It is an administrative denial of a right which the lawmakers have not seen fit to withhold from, but have actually guaranteed to him.' Cf. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 , 66 S.Ct. 1239. The injury is not limited to the defendant-there is injury to the jury system, to the law as an institution, to the community at large, and to the democratic ideal reflected in the processes of our courts.

If, as in the Thiel case, we had merely an instance of a petit jury drawn from an improper panel, we would remand the cause for a new trial. But, as we have said, the grand jury was likewise drawn from a panel improperly [329 U.S. 187, 196] chosen and therefore the indictment was not returned in accordance with the procedure established by Congress. Accordingly, the indictment must be dismissed. In disposing of the case on this ground we do not reach all the issues urged and it is suggested that in so limiting our opinion we prolong an already lengthy proceeding. We are told that these petitioners will again be before us for the determination of questions now left undecided. But we cannot know that this is so, and to assume it would be speculative. The United States may or may not present new charges framed within the limits of our earlier opinion. A properly constituted grand jury may or may not return new indictments. Petitioners may or may not be convicted a second time.

REVERSED.

Mr. Justice JACKSON, concurring.

I concur in the result, but for quite different reasons. I join the opinions of Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and of Mr. Justice BURTON to the effect that we should not now direct dismissal of the indictment upon the jury question. In my opinion, the point either was abandoned by the parties or if not, was ignored or silently rejected by the Court in its prior decision, 322 U.S. 78 , 64 S.Ct. 882, and should not be revived now. I therefore reach the other issues in the case. I would direct dismissal of the indictment upon the grounds stated in dissent in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 , at page 92, 64 S.Ct. 882, at page 889, and a further ground. This Court previously ruled that it is improper for the trial court to inquire whether the religious professions and experiences as represented by defendants were true or false but that it can inquire only as to whether they were represented without belief in their truth. This leaves no statutory basis for conviction of fraud and especially no basis for conviction under this indictment. It requires, in my opinion, a provably false representation in addition to [329 U.S. 187, 197] knowledge of its falsity to make c iminal mail fraud. Since the trial court is not allowed to make both findings, the indictment should be dismissed.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER (with whom the CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice JACKSON and Mr. Justice BURTON concur) dissenting.

In the exercise of its supervisory power over the lower federal courts, the Court is directing the dismissal of the indictment in this case, because, following the practice then prevailing in the federal district court in California, no women were included in the panel of the grand jury which found the indictment. My brother BURTON demonstrates, I believe, that under the circumstances the absence of women from the grand jury panel did not vitiate the indictment. But, in any event, this Court's authority to supervise practice in the lower federal courts should be exercised only to vindicate appropriate standards of judicial administration. In finding that the exclusion of women from the grand jury panel is fatal to the indictment, the Court embraces a claim for the benefit of the petitioners which they themselves abandoned more than four years ago. And since women have not been excluded from jury service in the California federal courts since 1944, the Court cannot justify its action as a means of emphasizing to the lower courts the duty of adopting a proper practice. Thus the Court directs the dismissal of an indictment under circumstances in which the Court's action does not advance the proper administration of criminal justice.

The defendants were fully cognizant of the facts and of the issues involved when they made their objection to the composition of the grand jury panel and when they abandoned it. They objected to the array before the district court, saved the point when their objection was overruled, and assigned it as one of the errors in their specifica- [329 U.S. 187, 198] tions on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. In ample time for the defendants to rely on it in the Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court decided Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S.Ct. 457, which indicated that we deemed it important that a jury be selected on what may be described as a modern democratic basis. And yet the point made and overruled in the District Court was not argued in the briefs before the Circuit Court of Appeals, although the defendants vigorously urged other claims to reverse their convictions. The fact that the jury question was 'in issue' before the Circuit Court of Appeals, in the sense of having been assigned as error, but was neither briefed nor argued there, only serves to emphasize the abandonment of the issue before that court. When on the Government's petition the case came before this Court, the defendants surely pressed every claim that seemed to them relevant to sustain the judgment which the Circuit Court of Appeals had entered in their favor. For it is too well settled to require citation of cases that the respondent here may urge and support any ground by which judgment in his favor can be sustained, whether or not it was argued in the court below. Their briefs and oral argument vigorously urged other issues going to the validity of the indictment. The exclusion of women was not even mentioned. And this Court, with the full record before it, took no notice of this question which now is found to undermine the entire proceedings. When we remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals we plainly did so to have that court decide questions argued here which it had left undecided. We would hardly have invited its decision on questions which had been abandoned and not argued before it. If a procedural point can ever be abandoned, objection to the jury panels was here abandoned.

With the Glasser opinion before them and with the point properly preserved in their appeal papers, the abandonment of the issue by the petitioners, when the case came [329 U.S. 187, 199] before the Circuit Court of Appeals and later before us, can mean only that they had no confidence in the claim, and that, in any event, they had not been hur by what is now deemed a fatal error. It hardly helps the proper administration of criminal justice to allow the defendants to resurrect a point which they had dropped four years earlier. *
Even now, this Court does not find that the exclusion of women constitutes an inroad on the vital safeguards for a criminal trial so as to involve a denial of due process. [329 U.S. 187, 200] The Court orders dismissal of an indictment because of a past practice pursued in good faith under misapprehension of relevant law. But that misconception has been corrected and the proper practice has been enforced since 1944. The Court's order cannot serve as a means of ensuring a charge in federal practice when that change has already taken place.

Dismissal of this indictment will not put an end to prosecution for the offenses which it charges. And so it cannot in any event relieve the Court from the duty of deciding the central issue before us, namely, whether the mails may be used to obtain money by fraud when the final consists of a false claim of belief touching religion. Dismissal of this indictment does not terminate prosecution for these offenses because Congress by the Act of May 10, 1934, 48 Stat. 772, amended, July 10, 1940, 54 Stat. 747, 18 U.S.C. 587, 18 U.S.C.A. 587, has expressly saved this prosecution. By that Act, Congress allowed reindictment where an indictment was found defective but the basis of the prosecution is left untouched. As amended it provides that

'Whenever an indictment is found defective or insufficient for any cause, after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned not later than the end of the next succeeding regular term of such court, following the term at which such indictment was found defective or insufficient, during which a grand jury thereof shall be in session.'
Considering the history of this litigation, the reasonable assumption is that the Gove nment will press this prosecution.

A conviction was had. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. On petition of the Government we brought the case here. The Government urged that the judgment of conviction be restored, while [329 U.S. 187, 201] the defendants challenged its very foundation by invoking the constitutional guaranty of freedom of religion. In April 1944, we reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals and found that the district court had properly 'withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents.' 322 U.S. 78 , at page 88, 64 S.Ct. 882, at page 887. But the case was remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals without considering the question whether the First Amendment affords immunity from criminal prosecution for the procurement of money by false statements as to one's religious experiences. Three Justices concluded that the verdict should stand, and, in an opinion by the late Chief Justice, denied that the First Amendment afforded immunity for fraudulent use of the mails simply because the false statements concerned religious beliefs. A fourth Justice likewise thought this issue had to be met. He concluded that the indictment should be dismissed because it raised issues inextricably bound up with traditional liberty and could not be sustained in view of the First Amendment. Upon remand the Circuit Court of Appeals, after considering the issues which impliedly were remitted to it by this Court, found no flaw in the jury's verdict and affirmed the conviction. After three years the case is again here, and the main issue urged, both in argument and in the extensive briefs, is the power of the Government to maintain this prosecution in view of the First Amendment. A decision by this court merely directing the dismissal of the indictment because of error in the selection of the grand jury which found it will inevitably lead to curing of this defect by resubmission to a properly selected grand jury. It can hardly be believed that the Government will not feel under duty to do so. The whole machinery of criminal justice will again be set in motion. A trial will follow, and the District Court will naturally deem itself bound to entertain the prosecution [329 U.S. 187, 202] in view of the decision of its Circuit Court of Appeals, twice left undisturbed here, which rejected the claim based on religious liberty.

It is too much like playing with justice to await a third review, two or three years hence, before facing this issue explicitly. The doctrine that a constitutional claim should not be prematurely considered is a vital feature in the harmonious functioning of our scheme of government. But it is a rule founded in reason, not a mechanical formula for avoiding an aspect of a litigation which cannot be fairly decided without meeting the constitutional issue. If this controversy could really be disposed of merely by finding that the grand jury was improperly selected, abstention from a constitutional adjudication would be imperative. Such would be the case if further prosecution were barred by the statute of limitations. But the Act of 1934, as we have seen, removes the bar and sanctions a reindictment, which is to be anticipated in view of the circumstances of this litigation. We cannot escape our responsibility by dealing merely with the remediable invalidity of the indictment, leaving untouched the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the prosecution is valid. Of course the defendants might be acquitted at a new trial. But a court which purports to exercise supervisory authority in the interests of the administration of criminal justice ought not to permit the waste and unfairness involved in a new trial if there is no foundation for it. Especially is this a claim on the proper administration of justice in a case which has been in the courts for almost six years, and which is now starting on a new round as a result of the Court's decision.

In short, the prosecution ill continue unless we terminate it. We can terminate it only if this Court should deem beyond constitutional authority a prosecution of the charges upon which the jury found the defendants [329 U.S. 187, 203] guilty and which the Circuit Court of Appeals sustained. We ought not to give implied sanction to the continuance of this prosecution, if we do not mean to do so, by withholding our view on an issue inescapable in the full disposition of the controversy before the Court. Candor repels it and the requirements of constitutional adjudication do not justify it.

Mr. Justice BURTON, dissenting.

Altough I concur in this Court's policy of requiring the inclusion in federal jury lists in California of women qualified for service as jurors of the highest court of law in that State, I believe that we are not justified in dismissing the indictment returned in this case in 1941 merely because women were not included in such lists at that time. In the absence of a binding statutory or court rule then requiring such inclusion of women the District Court was compelled to exercise its own discretion in including or excluding them. Without depending on the breadth of the discretion which should be allowed to a District Court under those circumstances, I submit that the reasons for the District Court action strengthen the position that this Court should not now retroactively disapprove the established local federal practice which conformed almost exactly with the established state practice.

Ever since its first Judicature Act Congress has subordinated federal practice to state law in determining the qualifications of federal jurors. In that Act it said: 'the jurors shall have the same qualifications as are requisite for jurors by the laws of the State of which they are citizens, to serve in the highest courts of law of such State, ....' Section 29, Act of September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 88. Similarly, the present law reads: 'Jurors to serve in the courts of the United States, in each State respectively, shall have the same qualifications, subject to [329 U.S. 187, 204] the provisions hereinafter contained, and be entitled to the same exemptions, as jurors of the highest court of law in such State may have and be entitled to at the time when such jurors for service in the courts of the United States are summoned.' Section 275, Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1087, 1164, 28 U.S.C. 411, 28 U.S.C.A. 411.1

There is no constitutional, statutory or court rule or policy requiring women to be placed on all federal jury lists. Congress might have required such a course and might have set up complete federal qualifications for federal jurors, but it never has done so. Instead, it has provided that state action shall determine most of the qualifications for federal jury service. As a result, it would be reversible error for the federal courts to include women on federal juries in those states which do not make women eligible for service as jurors of the highest court of law in such states. Cf. Crowley v. United States, 194 U.S. 461 , 24 S.Ct. 731. This is an inescapable recognition by Congress that it sees nothing seriously prejudicial in the continued use of exclusively male federal juries in states where women are not eligible for state jury duty. The availability of appropriate accommodations for the two sexes has been treated as a material factor in determining whether women and men shall be called for jury duty. Acts and Resolves of R.I. ( 1939), c. 700, 37;People v. Shannon, 203 Cal. 139, 263 P. 522. See Report to the Judicial Conference of the [329 U.S. 187, 205] Committee on the Selection of Jurors (1942), 23. Subordination of the need for women on federal juries to the availability of physical accommodations for them is a tacit recognition that no fundamental infraction of the rights of litigants is involved in the continuance of exclusively male juries.

In some employments, women are distinguished from men, as a matter of law, in connection with their hours and conditions of work. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 , 57 S.Ct. 578, 108 A.L.R. 1330. These distinctions are due to considerations not applicable to jury service. The general and increasing absence of sound reasons for distinctions between men and women in matters of suffrage, office holding, education, economic status, civil liberties, church membership, cultural activities, and even war service, emphasizes the lack of reason for making a point of the presence or absence of either sex, as such, on either grand or petit juries. See Miller, The Woman Juror (1922), 2 Ore.L.Rev. 30, 40.

By a general practice of not calling women for jury duty although eligible for such duty, the state courts of California, in effect, have granted women a substantial exemption from that duty. People v. Parman, 14 Cal.2d 17, 92 P.2d 387; People v. Shannon, supra. See United States v. Ballard, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 105, 107. The California courts thus have treated men and women as equally qualified and have assumed that litigants will have an adequate impartial jury, regardless of the sex of the jurors, provided the jurors otherwise are qualified to serve. Cf. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 374 , 32 S.Ct. 793, 804, Ann.Cas.1914A, 614; Agnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 44 , 17 S.Ct. 235, 238. While such a state practice is not binding upon the federal courts as a matter of law, yet it is persuasive as indicating that litigants need not be treated as having been prejudiced when a Federal District Court has conformed its practice to that of the state. For the [329 U.S. 187, 206] state rule see People v. Parman supra; In re Mana, 178 Cal. 213, 172 P. 986, L.R.A.1918E, 771; People v. Manuel, 41 Cal.App. 153, 182 P. 306.

The error in the federal practice cannot be the exclusion of women, as such, because such exclusion not only is permitted but is required by federal statute in states where they are not eligible for state jury duty. The error, if any, must consist of the failure to require the listing of women, as well as men, for all federal jury service in a state which permits such listing for state jury service, even though the state regards such listing as directory to and not mandatory upon the state courts.

There are ample grounds for distinguishing Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 , 66 S.Ct. 984, from this case. For example, in the Thiel case, the Court acted in the absence of actual notice that the objectionable practice had been discontinued,2 whereas, here, we have notice that the practice objected to was changed more than two years ago to conform, at least substantially, to the approved practice. Also, in the Thiel case, the procedure complained of consisted of the exclusion of an economic group, thereby detracting from the representative character of the jury list, in a manner contrary to the tradition and purpose of the jury system. Here the exclusion of women, as such, from jury service not only was in accordance with the traditional practice, but is in accordance with the congressionally approved future practice in the federal and state courts of about 40% of the states. This shows that the only objectionable practice here was that, after the State h d established a directory system of eligibility of women for state [329 U.S. 187, 207] jury service, the federal court did not at once enlarge that policy into a mandatory requirement that all qualified women be placed upon all federal jury lists.

For these reasons, I am unable to concur in the judgment setting aside the indictment and verdict. The convictions in this case should be affirmed, and I concur in the statement by Mr. Chief Justice Stone: 'Certainly none of respondents' constitutional rights are violated if they are prosecuted for the fraudulent procurement of money by false representations as to their beliefs, religious or otherwise.' United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 90 , 64 S.Ct. 882, 888

The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER join in this dissent. Mr. Justice JACKSON joins in it except in so far as the final paragraph relates to an affirmance of the convictions.

Footnotes
[ Footnote 1 ] Women have been members of both grand and petit juries in that district since the beginning of the February Term, 1944. See United States v. Chaplin, D.C., 54 F.Supp. 682.

[ Footnote 2 ] Thus Judicial Code 276, 28 U.S.C. 412, 28 U.S.C.A. 412, provides for the drawing of 'All such jurors, grand and petit' from persons 'possessing the qualifications prescribed' in 411.

[ Footnote 3 ] Judicial Code 278, 28 U.S.C. 415, 28 U.S.C.A. 415.

[ Footnote 4 ] Judicial Code 276, 28 U.S.C. 412, 28 U.S.C.A. 412.

[ Footnote 5 ] Judicial Code 277, 28 U.S.C. 413, 28 U.S.C.A. 413.

[ Footnote 6 ] No person shall serve as a petit juror 'more than one term in a year'. Judicial Code 286, 28 U.S.C. 423, 28 U.S.C.A. 423.

Artificers and workmen employed in armories and arsenals of the United States are exempted from service as jurors. 50 U.S.C. 57, 50 U.S. C.A. 57. Cf. Judicial Code 288, 28 U.S.C. 426, 28 U.S.C.A. 426, dealing with disqualifications of jurors in prosecutions for bigamy, polygamy or unlawful cohabitation.

[ Footnote 7 ] Report to the Judicial Conference of the Committee on Selection of Jurors (1942), p. 23.

[ Footnote 8 ] An earlier indictment (subsequently dismissed) was returned against petitioners who moved to quash because of the exclusion of women from the panel of grand jurors. The motion was denied. United States v. Ballard, D. C., 35 F.Supp. 105. That ruling seems to have been influenced by the thought that California law determined whether the exclusion of women resulted in a proper jury. Under California law the inclusion of women on the panel is not obligatory, the statutory provisions which qualify them for jury service being directory only. People v. Shannon, 203 Cal. 139, 263 P. 522; People v. Parman, 14 Cal.2d 17, 92 P.2d 387.

[ Footnote 9 ] See Miller, The Woman Juror, 2 Oregon L.Rev. 30; cf. Carson, Women Jurors (1928), p. 15.

[ Footnote 10 ] The problem is reflected in the discussions of the androcentric theory and the gynaecocentric theory in scientific literature. See Ward, Pure Sociology (1903), Ch. XIV; Draper et al., Human Constitution in Clinical Medicine (1944), Ch. VI.

[ Footnote 11 ] Cf. Wuichet v. United States, 6 Cir., 8 F.2d 561-563.

[ Footnote * ] The two cases invoked by the Court are inapposite. The circumstances in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 168 , 169 S., are so different from those now before us that the Court's action in that case can afford no support for what is here done. In affirming the conviction the Court had not noticed that the sentence imposed after trial was imprisonment at hard labor, whereas the applicable statute authorized only sentence to ordinary imprisonment. It had not been called to the Court's attention, and it was not the kind of error that the Court would notice. But the error, which everybody had overlooked, would, if uncorrected, have subjected a defendant to punishment far more severe than any authorized by Congress. In the case before us the error, such as it may be, goes to a procedural point not bearing on the fairness of the trial, or the conviction, or the sentence. And the result of this Court's action as to this procedural point is to vitiate the entire proceeding, not merely to remand for formal resentencing as in the Reynolds case. Also, in the Reynolds case the Court noted the error when indicated to it in a petition for rehearing at the same term of Court. It had not previously been indicated to any court and evidently had not previously been noted by anyone. It did not, as here, make its way to the surface after it had been duly and vigorously urged, had been assigned as error, then dropped, buried for three years, only to be resurrected as an afterthought and a makeweight to argument on the merits. Again, in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 16 , 61 S.Ct. 422, 427, the District Court sought to punish for contempt action which was specifically exempt from such punishment. Error of a 'fundamental nature' was apparently noticed and pressed by the defendants for the first time when the case came to this Court. And the Court considered the point while the case was before it, not, as here, when it reappears as tail to another issue three years after the record containing the alleged error first came before us.

[ Footnote 1 ] The federal courts, therefore, are bound by state definitions of jurors' qualifications subject to federal constitutional and statutory limitations. It has been argued that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution guarantee the continuance of the exclusively male common law federal juries, but it is now generally agreed that women are qualified to serve on federal juries wherever the states have declared them qualified as jurors of the highest court of law in their respective states. See United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145 , 57 S.Ct. 177, 185; Tynan v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F. 177, 178, 179, certiorari denied, 266 U.S. 604 , 45 S.Ct. 91; Hoxie v. United States, 9 Cir., 15 F.2d 762, certiorari denied, 273 U.S. 755 , 47 S.Ct. 459.

[ Footnote 2 ] It now appears, however, that, beginning in 1943, the practice objected to in the Thiel case has been discontinued. Louis E. Goddman, U.S. District Judge, N.D., Calif., Federal Jury Selections as Affected by Thiel v. Southern Pacific Company, 21 Journal of the State Bar of California 352, 357.
Ockham
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Re: RSE Student Deaths Thread 2

Unread post by Ockham »

As usual. I must preface that only a lawyer licensed to practice can give a legal opinion. My personal understanding is that to proceed, a class action suit must be asking fundamentally the same legal question for everyone who purports to be a class member. Probably, the best candidate would be the time that hundreds of attendees were all given the same instruction to go to the field and run full speed toward each other blind folded. One would hope to be able persuade the court that the one action of JZK, Inc. was the probable cause of each individual’s injuries. The question the court would be deciding on behalf of the class would be if indeed it were true that the order to run at each other was the cause, and if so what remedy should be made.

Sally Paulsen's grizzly death caused by falling into the buried barrel containing her food cache is awful indeed, but probably does not fall into a class. There is no doubt in my own mind that Sally was inspired to hoard food because of what she was taught at RSE. Her estate would have to sue on her behalf, and would need to show Sally's death resulted from a specific instruction given by JZK employees. That is, did a lecture at RSE tell students to construct their hoards in certain specific dangerous way? I know students were told to bury food, but I don't know if specific building plans were given out.

There might be a possibility to make classes of persons from the JZ Knight's encouragement of alcohol abuse and Prozac abuse. There are copyrighted sound recordings issued by JZK where Judy Knight in the voice of, 'Ramtha,' talks about what might be construed as excessive drinking of alcohol. The questions would be: What is the threshold of excessive consumption? Does that apply to everybody? Did everybody receive the same instruction? Can the resulting injuries all be attributed to that specific instruction? I feel the biggest problem in this case would be to convince the court that whatever JZK is alleged to have done is in some way measurable in as much that the proposed remedy may be applied to each class member in a formulaic manner.

The Prozac abuse is also documented to the degree that reliable archives RSE's web site covey what appears to be unscientific and pharmacologically incorrect information about Prozac. While they may exist, I have not yet personally heard sound recordings issued by JZK giving students specific instructions to obtain the drug illegally or materially prescribing the drug without a medical license to do so. Yes there, is good evidence that a crooked nurse practitioner was in attendance at RSE and a pill mill operation was going on in Yelm. The problem would be to show that JZK was materially involved itself in setting up or funding illegal activity. Next, the related injuries would have to be established.

I could see that perhaps these cases might not be winnable, but they might still attract a good amount of media theater. No doubt, questions of whether it was Judy Knight or, 'Ramtha,' that said certain things, and thus is, 'Ramtha,' real or not, and is, 'Ramtha,' an employee of JZK, Inc. would have to be asked. The hype and theater might well have the desired result of helping expose the RSE for the sham it is. No doubt, it would all be expensive and time consuming.
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Legal actions against RSE Step 3

Unread post by David McCarthy »

Dang..forgot to add these post from the forum.
• View topic - RSE Student Deaths Thread 2
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1522

David.

___________________________________________________________________

David Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:38 pm
hi Joe,
Thanks for wading in on this,
I think you are missing several a key elements here..
but prosecuting any abusive spouse or cult leader before an act of violence, misdemeanor, or felony occurs is well nigh impossible.
1. We do have the evidence of all the above, but what we don't have is the $$$$$$$$ to launch a class action lawsuit. This may change any day ....if someone steps forward with financial support .
2. RSE is operating a multinational corporation without a business permit and has done for the past twelve years, this must be and will be investigated if we make enough noise and talk to the right people. Ok, so JZ Knight will just get a business permit right?
Nope, RSE would be shut down until it conforms to health and safety regulations, JZ knight may even be hit with a hefty fine for grossly flouting the temporary permit expired since Feb 2000.
These are the issues that the press also needs to hear about and report on.

David

___________________________________________________

David Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:26 pm
who out there is willing to put their lives on hold for many years while putting up with the nasty tactics that an unscrupulous JZ/Ramtha lawyer will use????
I understand this is something you would not participate in Joe, and why should you?
as for the majority of EMF posters it is enough to recover from RSE and move on.
but please understand there are those that are willing go the distance in a class action lawsuit against JZ/Knight RSE inc, including myself.
we have been thru this before--
We at EMF will continual to seek out all legal remedies to bring JZ Knight to account in a court of law..
A class action lawsuit has not and will not be taken off the EMF table.

David

____________________________________________________________________

Joe Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:00 am
ockham. thanks for your insight...always good reading

here's more re US vs Ballard and the often cited [by cult lawyers and sociologists] statement by Justice Jackson:
Quote:
Justice Jackson's dissent
Justice Jackson dissented because he believed that the First Amendment foreclosed inquiry into both the truthfulness of the defendants' religious claims and their sincerity. He would have dismissed the case entirely for being too close to a religious persecution:[4]
I should say the defendants have done just that for which they are indicted. If I might agree to their conviction without creating a precedent, I cheerfully would do so. I can see in their teachings nothing but humbug, untainted by any trace of truth. But that does not dispose of the constitutional question whether misrepresentation of religious experience or belief is prosecutable; it rather emphasizes the danger of such prosecutions.
Prosecutions of this character easily could degenerate into religious persecution.
I would dismiss the indictment and have done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths.
All schools of religious thought make enormous assumptions, generally on the basis of revelations authenticated by some sign or miracle.
Some who profess belief in the Bible read literally what others read as allegory or metaphor, as they read Aesop's fables.
If we try religious sincerity severed from religious verity, we isolate the dispute from the very considerations which, in common experience, provide its most reliable answer.
William James, who wrote on these matters as a scientist, reminds us that it is not theology and ceremonies which keep religion going. Its vitality is in the religious experiences of many people. "If you ask what these experiences are, they are conversations with the unseen, voices and visions, responses to prayer, changes of heart, deliverances from fear, inflowings of help, assurances of support, whenever certain persons set their own internal attitude in certain appropriate ways."
If religious liberty includes, as it must, the right to communicate such experiences to others, it seems to me an impossible task for juries to separate fancied ones from real ones, dreams from happenings, and hallucinations from true clairvoyance. Such experiences, like some tones and colors, have existence for one, but none at all for another. They cannot be verified to the minds of those whose field of consciousness does not include religious insight. When one comes to trial which turns on any aspect of religious belief or representation, unbelievers among his judges are likely not to understand, and are almost certain not to believe, him.
[edit]Subsequent history

On remand to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the original conviction was affirmed without rehearing by the Court of Appeals. The defendants once again petitioned for a writ of certiorari and it was once again granted, this time on the issue of women being excluded from grand jury and the trial jury. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the indictment as well as the subsequent conviction.[5]
[edit]See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ballard
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2892
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Legal actions against RSE Step 3

Unread post by David McCarthy »

Great thread... :idea:
I think this topic deserves its own thread..Legal actions against RSE Step 3
I don't think I've ever expressed my deepest gratitude and respect to Lawrence Wollersheim "winner of an 8.7 million dollar lawsuit against Scientology" and Co-founder of Factnet...
http://www.factnet.org/
Before EMF existed Factnet was the only place to speak out publically about JZ Knight and RSE.
Thank you and Kudos to Lawrence Wollersheim, your stand against Scientology and your creation of Factnet is an inspiration that continues to help countless victims of cultic abuse.

David.
Lawrence Wollersheim.jpg
Legal actions .........
Lawrence Wollersheim.jpg
Lawrence Wollersheim
In 1986, a jury awarded Wollersheim $5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages for what jurors called intentional and negligent "infliction of emotional distress." On appeal this was reduced to $2.5 million.[1] Scientology officials vowed never to pay, and the phrase "not one thin dime for Wollersheim," was chanted by Scientologists at court hearings.[2] The church challenged the $2.5 million award, but the case was dismissed and Wollersheim was awarded an additional $130,506.71 in attorney's fees.[3]
In their 1991 appeal, the Church of Scientology said that "Fair Game" was a "core practice of Scientology", and protected as "religious expression". This was also stated by Scientology attorneys in the case against Gerald Armstrong, in 1984, by religious expert Frank K. Flinn.[4][5][6]
After over 20 years, the Church agreed to settle the case and pay an $8.7 million settlement on May 9, 2002.[2][7]
The settlement money was deposited with the court clerk, and was paid to Wollersheim's attorneys. According to Wollersheim, as of May, 2005, there was less than $2.3 million in the account and there was a claim by attorney Leta Schlosser for $2.7 million against the fund. Wollersheim says he had not received any of the funds from the case.[8] On October 28, 2005 the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a Los Angeles daily legal publication, reported that the Wollersheim case was ongoing and a trial was forthcoming regarding the Leta Schlosser claim. It said that Schlosser had received $100,000, but she was suing for more.[9] On December 8, 2006, it reported that Wollersheim won the case on appeal, as Schlosser lacked an enforceable lien under the Rules of Professional Conduct.[10
Lawrence Wollersheim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wollersheim
How I healed the psychological injuries from my abuse in a cult -
Lawrence Wollersheim | Factnet NewsSite and Discussion Forum
http://www.factnet.org/node/654
I am the Co-founder of http://www.factnet.org the oldest and largest Internet source of free information on cults and mind control.
I am also the winner of an 8.7 million dollar lawsuit against Scientology --- that Scientology was forced to pay!
How I healed the psychological injuries from my abuse in a cult - Lawrence Wollersheim
How I healed the psychological injuries from my abuse in a cult
By Lawrence Wollersheim
I am the Co-founder of http://www.factnet.org the oldest and largest internet source of free information on cults and mind control. I am also the winner of an 8.7 million dollar lawsuit against Scientology --- that Scientology was forced to pay!
I have waited far to long to write and share this short statement of how I was healed of the greatest part of the damage the cult of Scientology did to me through their use of mind control.
To put things in perspective the psychological damage caused by Scientology is generally considered the worst and longest lasting of all cults. And, I did not just heal back up to where I was before I was abused by Scientology, the simple process below actually transformed my pain and loss into amazing strengths and character qualities that I could have never attained had I not done all 5 steps below.
If you are a cult abuse victim, the simple list below can be used as a checklist to see what might be missing from your healing program. Most of the information below is also equally applicable to all other forms of abuse and victimization.
Step 1: Learn what happened to you by reading the accounts of other similar victims.
Step 1a: If you are a victim of cult abuse, thoroughly learn about the psychological dynamics of how mind control works. This way you will be able to see more certainly and clearly how you were systematically deceived and victimized by a technology in the hands of the unscrupulous cult leaders or their middle management manipulated manipulators.

Step 2: Get therapy from a specialist in the area of abuse that you have suffered. Keep getting enough therapy until you are far more functional and the cult created irrational thought loops and induced phobias are no longer controlling the way you think about or see the world. (Therapy will go far faster and easier if you really don’t skimp on step 1 above.)

Step 3: Get real angry and sue your abuser. Anger over injustice is appropriate and useful if used as a temporary motivational scaffolding. More importantly when you sue the abuser you reverse the psychological victim/oppressor dynamics radically.
You are now the society sanctioned legal oppressor and they are the appropriate and legitimate victim of the social justice process. I cannot over-emphasize how much it will help your healing when you sue the oppressor even if you do not win!
When you see your oppressor on the stand in the court as a mere and often pathetic mortal with no magical or special spiritual powers, it does wonders to break more of the cult induce mindset out of you and restore to you once again your own power. Suing your oppressor also does much to teach others about their abuses through the pubic exposure you bring to them in the disinfecting light of the courts. Finally, suing them for legitimate abuse increases their costs for wrongdoing and begins to make them consider avoiding such wrongdoing which would cause more similar suits in the future.
Because it is not my practice to answer individual questions, shortly I will be publishing at http://www.factnet.org and emailing out to the various cult support organizations exactly what I believe were the most important things that I learned on exactly how to win a civil lawsuit against a cult (particularly Scientology) so you will also have the benefit of this hard won successful lawsuit experience when you sue your abuser and continue deepening your healing
.

Step 4: If you were in a religious cult and the religious abuse and spiritual betrayal has taken you away form your spiritual journey and spiritual quest it is absolutely critical to re-begin your spiritual journey and your inner more meaningful life again. Deep spiritual betrayal is among the hardest of the betrayals to overcome, but when you do you will heal faster and deeper than on any other step of the process.

Step 5: Educate others on the cult and their abuses. I co-founded FACTNet to do just that. Now there are many ways to help you do this on and off the internet.

That is it! Do these five steps with a passion and your will become stronger and better and healthier than you have ever been. Your experience will become so transformative it will border on transcendental.
I wish you the absolute best on your healing journey to wholeness and to your new abilities and strengths.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Wollersheim

PS Please pass this simple “how to heal” email or web page to everyone you know who you think could be benefited by this simple power formula for the healing of cult abuse.

Factnet NewsSite and Discussion Forum | Resources & Support for Recovery from the Coercive Practices of Cults & Religions since 1993
http://www.factnet.org/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Re: Legal actions against RSE Step 3

Unread post by joe sz »

I think it is about time to bring on the real Ramtha. Truth is ALL about personal EXPERIENCE, isn't it? "I will come to you as the wind" says Ramtha, is in effect a personal experience. Ramtha as the wind says this through me is a legit claim even by RSE standards. No channel around in the wind blowing hot air in your ear..just you and the god. Ramtha teaches that very principle, that R is your personal god, your Ishta Devata or Ishvara, which is what Hindus call it. Ramtha is essentially ripped out of the Hindu tradition (tha Ram--Ram the most common name for God in India). A clear argument can be made that the trademark itself is a fluke because Ramtha like Yahweh or Siva cannot be trapped in trademark--it is also the name of a city, as we know.

I know, this amount to legal quibbling because we are dealing with US law and no international court would care, unless, RSE tried to set up shop in India or Trinidad, eg. I guarantee you, JZ will not want to tangle with Hindu fundamentalists that care more about divine right than domestic law. But that is what lawyers do best: quibble their way to a win in court.

Open the curtain, let the spooky guy out of the trademark cage and start channeling. Can you imagine 10,000 people channeling Ramtha :?:
Hell, Jesus has at least that many folk channeling him, so what's the big deal? Comte de Saint Germain? countless mediums since Blavatsky.
I mean, how many lawsuits could RSE handle, really :?:
Not one good one.
While we are at it, throw Mafu in there too--not much difference, just a slight shift in inflection and a better singing talent.

RSE should host an American Channel contest to see who can match or surpass JZ's by now outmoded and tired performances. The winner can take over the cult after JZ starts pushing up the daisies.

Of course, i am being facetious [or am I :?: ], but it is a good thought experiment.
Rooster
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:30 pm

Re: Legal actions against RSE Step 3

Unread post by Rooster »

Thinking back to Ockhams post. I thought it was law for a large public facility to display and ADE and be ready for any public, medical emergencies. Any reputiple puplic area would. It is not like J.Z. can not afford it. But public safety is obviously no concern as she crowds in way above the maximun at certain events. Not to mention smoking of pipes and way too drunk of a crowd. It is not just a big house party any more. Most would be concerned about the concenquenses on their land. Also as most properties are concerned the legal participation documents that are signed should not really stand in court in a liability case. It is not full proof even if signed. It is the reason insurance on horse farms ect is so high. There are many loop holes as well as you are still the property owner and still invited willing the participants.
Ockham
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Re: Legal actions against RSE Step 3

Unread post by Ockham »

Good thoughts Rooster. It points out the truth of Judy Knight and her henchmen. They don't care, they're cheapskates and they probably feel safety measures tacitly contradict the teaching. Of course, attending to safety is reasonable because students don't walk onto the grounds of RSE as ascended masters; if they were, they wouldn't need RSE in the first place.

RSE ignores obvious problems on its own ground: inadequate first aid preparedness, over crowding of the horse arena, pitching tents next to the creek swollen with rain, exposing students to poorly managed inherently dangerous outdoor activities, etc. On the other hand, RSE trains at excruciating length and detail about underground shelters, copper roofs and food hoarding. If C+E really is elemental to the creation of reality, why would anybody allow a reality where the undergrounds and hoarding are necessary? For me this contradiction of believing C+E, while in parallel doing the constant disaster preparing that is in essence a disbelief in exactly what is being taught is an important element why RSE doesn't work for me.

Several of the EMF contributors have pointed out that JZK, Inc. wields a lot of political control in Thurston County, and it seems like the local government is firmly looking the other way while RSE goes and does whatever RSE wants. JZK, Inc. is slippery eel acting like business grabbing money any way it can, but on the other hand pretending it is some sort of religion and suggesting outside intervention would be violating its self perceived free speech rights.

I have a feeling not much oversight of conditions at RSE is going to be brought to bear unless some really big incident occurs that affects a lot of people. Let's pray that doesn't happen. As much as ramsters fear high water, I was surprised to see the photos David posted showing all those tents clustered up against the creek on the RSE grounds. Haven't they heard of thunder storms and flash floods? Maybe that isn't a significant risk in western Washington?

Again, a licensed attorney would have to give a legal opinion, but I believe the RSE participation agreement does not release RSE from negligence on its part. A student is agreeing not to sue RSE over injuries that result from the student's human error or that for which RSE has no reasonable ability to control. If RSE were to build the, 'tank,' for instance, in a shoddy, inadequate fashion, told students to go in, and the poor construction caused injuries, RSE can be sued.
Post Reply

Return to “Lawsuits & Court cases - JZK,Inc - latest lawsuit - RSE Music Copyright Infringments”