xjwsforChrist

Non-Religious Christian Spirituality
It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:44 pm
Posts: 1323
I was doing a search on this case I was just reading about that hit the wire:

https://www.courtlistener.com/dcd/eKhf/ ... -of-penns/

A portion therein:


Quote:
Plaintiff Seungjin Kim has filed a pro se complaint against the Watch Tower Bible and

Tract Society of Pennsylvania. According to the complaint, “Plaintiff is an owner of the spiritual

materials of Jehovah’s Witnesses” and an “anointed one[]” who has “copyright right and

owner[ship] of the spiritual materials of Jehovah’s witnesses biblically.” Compl. ¶ 1 [Dkt. # 1].

Plaintiff claims to have “created spiritual Apps 1 by Jehovah’s Witnesses” that defendant has

“deleted . . . [by] force . . . because they have been ignored Bible law for a long time.” Id. ¶ 3.

Citing verses from the Bible, plaintiff contends that “[d]istribution of Religious Apps is extended

preaching work as door-to-door” and that defendant’s apparent refusal to “classify the

distribution of Plaintiff’s Religious Apps . . . as commercial peddling” constitutes a violation of

both the First amendment and “Bible law.” Id. ¶¶ 3–6. Plaintiff further claims to be the inventor



1 Plaintiff appears to refer to applications for use on devices like the Apple iPhone. He has
also brought suit against Apple, Inc. in a related case. See Kim v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-1034
(D.D.C. filed June 18, 2014).
of a “music player with lyrics for Sing to Jehovah” and that defendants “stole Plaintiff’s music

player.” Id. ¶ 8. Defendant, he alleges, “persecuted Plaintiff religiously . . . because Plaintiff

partook of the emblematic bread and wine,” has wrongfully accused plaintiff of copyright

infringement, and “stole Plaintiff’s computer skills and ideas.” Id. ¶ 9–10, 15. Plaintiff states

that defendant tortured him and “tried to kill [him] to conceal many things,” id. ¶ 13, and that he

has “sent almost 200 letters to Defendant . . . requesting help and inquiring but Defendant never

replied to Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 14. And, according to the complaint, “[t]hose in heaven told Plaintiff

through the spirit repeatedly that . . . the first president of the Watch Tower Society removed

current president of the society . . . and appointed Plaintiff as next president of Jehovah’s

witnesses.” Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff appears to seek an order instating him as the president of the

Watch Tower Society, id. ¶ 20, as well as $1 billion, which he states is the “value of Divine Law

and Religious Freedom.” Id., Prayer for Relief, at 5.


“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be

presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). In addition, “‘[i]t is axiomatic that subject

matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and that courts may raise the issue sua sponte.’”

NetworkIP, L.L.C. v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008), quoting Athens Cmty. Hosp., Inc.

v. Schweiker, 686 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Indeed, a federal court must raise the issue

because it is “forbidden – as a court of limited jurisdiction – from acting beyond [its] authority,

and ‘no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.’” Id.,

quoting Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003). A district court



2
may dismiss a complaint sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), when

it is evident that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See Evans v. Suter, No. 09-5242,

2010 WL 1632902 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010), citing Hurt v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Cir., No. 07-5019, 2008 WL 441786 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2008); Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox

Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003); Zernial v. United States, 714 F.2d 431,

433–34 (5th Cir. 1983).

Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking where a complaint “is patently insubstantial

presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009

(D.C. Cir. 2009), quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994). A claim is “patently

insubstantial” when it is “flimsier than doubtful or questionable . . . essentially fictitious.” Best,

39 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37

(1974) (“[F]ederal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their

jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly

insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous . . . .”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted);

see, e.g., Peters v. Obama, Misc. No. 10-0298, 2010 WL 2541066 (D.D.C. June 21, 2010) (sua

sponte dismissing complaint alleging that President Obama had been served with and failed to

respond to an “Imperial Writ of Habeas Corpus” by the “Imperial Dominion of Amexem,”

requiring the plaintiff’s immediate release from a correctional institution).

Although mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519 (1972); Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008),

plaintiff’s allegations in the present case present “no federal question suitable for decision.”

Best, 39 F.3d at 330. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case sua sponte pursuant to Rule


So basically what is going on now with the wt embracing the net, loving the delegate dancing and parties, the campaign to promote jw.org as some magically wonderful spiritual feast...is about to BACKFIRE...[IF I CAN BE OF ANY HELP IN GETTING THAT SNOWBALL ROLLING...I SURELY WILL DUE DILIGENCE IN ITS BUILD]. I touch on this issue on my youtube channel. I will ask bethel this week, if they can address anything about what people are reading online or are you going to continue to HIDE YOUR TRUTHS?

A call to Bethel is in order. I can't go to the site to ask if this is legit, so my option, as I choose, is to call and simply get the facts...if that is possible.











_________________
Image "I am proud to say that I will not lift one finger ( except my middle finger) for the WTBTS."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 4484
I think the plaintiff killed ANY hopes he had for "justice" dear Skalls (peace to you!) when he included the claim that:

Quote:
“[t]hose in heaven told Plaintiff through the spirit repeatedly that . . . the first president of the Watch Tower Society removed current president of the society . . . and appointed Plaintiff as next president of Jehovah’switnesses.” Id.

Plaintiff appears to seek an order instating him as the president of the Watch Tower Society, id. as well as $1 billion, which he states is the “value of Divine Law and Religious Freedom.” Id.


A pristeen example for their assertion as to some who profess to be anointed being "mentally diseased." NOBODY "from HEAVEN" would have told this man this. From some OTHER source, maybe, as all inspired expressions don't originate with God... but the HEAVENS ( as HE means them) have been CLEARLY of ALL who speak falsehoods.

In addition, JAH needs neither man's money... nor some institutional "president" on earth. He has installed HIS King... and That One is NO PART of THIS world.

This person has just weakened a LOT of VALID claims some might have. No doubt in MY mind that "someone" IS talking to him, poor soul... and what THEY hope to gain.

Chalk up one for the harlot... and her paramours.

Too bad...

Peace!


Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellamar


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:44 pm
Posts: 1323
I agree. Fascinating nonetheless.

This portion where I emboldened its text, what is most whacky:

Quote:
Plaintiff states

that defendant tortured him and “tried to kill [him] to conceal many things,” id. ¶ 13, and that he

has “sent almost 200 letters to Defendant . . . requesting help and inquiring but Defendant never

replied to Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 14. And, according to the complaint, “[t]hose in heaven told Plaintiff

through the spirit repeatedly that . . . the first president of the Watch Tower Society removed

current president of the society . . . and appointed Plaintiff as next president of Jehovah’s

witnesses.” Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff appears to seek an order instating him as the president of the

Watch Tower Society, id. ¶ 20, as well as $1 billion, which he states is the “value of Divine Law

and Religious Freedom.” Id., Prayer for Relief, at 5.


In your opinion, is this REAL? I mean, it all seems so out there. But then, we are talking about the whacky watchtower after all.

_________________
Image "I am proud to say that I will not lift one finger ( except my middle finger) for the WTBTS."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:19 am
Posts: 3165
Does the following mean that the case was dismissed then?

Quote:
Although mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519 (1972); Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008),

plaintiff’s allegations in the present case present “no federal question suitable for decision.”

Best, 39 F.3d at 330. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case sua sponte pursuant to Rule



I looked up the original court ruling, and that last bit is signed by the judge.


Also, the status of the case is listed as precedential. I'm not sure what that means, but...

Does that at all mean that the plaintiff was attempting to set a precedent, or that this case WOULD have set a precedent if approved? Because I was thinking that this was just unreal, lol... but remembered/heard that sometimes lawsuits can be more about making a statement or just trying to set a precedent.



Peace again.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:34 pm
Posts: 1261
Quote:
And, according to the complaint, “[t]hose in heaven told Plaintiff
through the spirit repeatedly that
. . . the first president of the Watch Tower Society removed
current president of the society . . . and appointed Plaintiff as next president of Jehovah’s
witnesses.” Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff appears to seek an order instating him as the president of the
Watch Tower Society, id. ¶ 20, as well as $1 billion, which he states is the “value of Divine Law
and Religious Freedom.” Id., Prayer for Relief, at 5.

LOL!!..
The plaintiff will never be the President in the WBT$..
President in a psychiatric hospital "Yes".....The WBT$ "No"..

Quote:
So basically what is going on now with the wt embracing the net, loving the delegate dancing and parties, the campaign to promote jw.org as some magically wonderful spiritual feast...is about to BACKFIRE...[IF I CAN BE OF ANY HELP IN GETTING THAT SNOWBALL ROLLING...I SURELY WILL DUE DILIGENCE IN ITS BUILD].

JW.ORG,the parties,the dancing ect..ect..Just saved the WBT$`s Ass..
It`s a huge success..Its Catching on in WBT$ World..
JW`s ARE EMBRACING ALL OF IT..
JW`s don`t remember what they used to preach against a few years ago..

The WBT$ ReBranding to JW.Org was a Brilliant move..
The marketing and advertising within the WBT$ Business "Worked!"
The only people leaving the WBT$ now,will be the stringently honest..
How many really,really,really honest people are in the WBT$ JW Cult??!!....Not many..
The WBT$ has recaptured the interest of 7 million Brain Dead JWs.....And....They`re staying for the WBT$ Party..LOL!!..
This is just the beginning..

.........................................Image...OUTLAW

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:15 pm
Posts: 4484
Quote:
In your opinion, is this REAL? I mean, it all seems so out there.


As I stated, dear Skalls (peace!), "No doubt in MY mind that "someone" IS talking to him, poor soul... and what THEY hope to gain." So, yes, I totally think it's real. WRONG, yes, but real... absolutely.

Quote:
Does the following mean that the case was dismissed then?


Yes, it was dismissed, dear tec (peace, luv!), "sua sponte." The judge felt, based on what was presented, that there was absolutely no merit in Mr. Kim's case(s) (he also sue Apple and Google), but they were just frivolous rants of some sort. "Sua sponte" allows the court to dismiss a case without a motion to do so from either party - the Court can just say, "This is BS and we're not hearing it, not going to even entertain it."

Quote:
Does that at all mean that the plaintiff was attempting to set a precedent,


It means that the Court's opinion can be cited as precedence, even though the opinion is unpublished (which wasn't always the case; before 2003, you could only cite published opinions. Since then, though, unpublished opinions can be cited and used in cases, too).

I hope that helps!

Peace to you, both!

A slave of Christ,

Shellamar


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:19 am
Posts: 3165
Yes, thank you!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group