What Happens When You Realize That You Or A Member Of Your Family Joined A Cult?

The Church Authority Doctrine Is Based On The Watson v. Jones (1871) Decision

There is a group of people who are mad and do not want to take it anymore. 

Who are these people?

What happened to them?

Why should I care about them- I am not one of them?

You might not be, this is true but what has happened to them may happen to you in court as well.  

They are or I should say were members of a Church that they felt lied to them or committed fraud.  Now, before you look at the article please try to keep an open mind. Many people are seeking the truth.  Many people turn to just a friendly face who presents themself at their door just at the right time.  Are they telling the truth?  Could it be truly as perfect as they said it was?  What liability do they have when talking people into joining their church?  These are the questions.  Here is the shocking answer.

On August 5. 2019, an individual filed a class-action lawsuit against the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This lawsuit presented these factual allegations:

    1. The Mormon Empire’s False Representations of Material Fact
Smith’s First Vision
False Official Narrative
Historically Accurate Account of Smith’s First Vision
    2. The Origin of the Book of Mormon

False Official Narrative
Accurate Account of the Book of Mormon Creation
    3. Smith’s Translation of the Book of Abraham

False Official Narrative
Accurate Account of the Book of Abraham Translation
Miscellaneous Misrepresentations of Material Fact

As the result of these facts, this group was harmed by the Church for the following:

1. Common Law Fraud

2. Fraud in Inducement

3. Breach of Equitably Imposed Fiduciary Duties

4. Fraudulent Concealment 

5. Civil Rico —18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

When a person or persons join a cult do they lose their Constitutionally guaranteed rights?  This answer will shock and surprise you.

There is such a thing as Church Autonomy Doctrine.  It was based in Common Law but appeared to be formally added to the legal world by the U.S. Supreme Court in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871).

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that it would resolve disputes relative to church property on a basis other than an examination of church doctrine, thus making the conflict between church and state less likely and arguably furthering the goals of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The Watson decision established important principles that have since “dominated all subsequent jurisprudence on the resolution of internal religious disputes” (Gerstenblith 1990: 522).

The Original Case- Watson v Jones Facts
The Watson case involved a dispute between the pro-and anti-slavery factions within the Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church of Louisville, Kentucky, both of whom claimed church property. The two factions disagreed not only about the divisive issue of slavery but also about fundamental issues of church management, such as whether the church should retain the services of Pastor McElroy and the selection and retention of church elders.

Watson v Jones Decision

Justice Samuel F. Miller’s decision for the Court rested on the premise that “[r]eligious organizations come before us in the same attitude as other voluntary associations for benevolent or charitable purposes, and their rights of property or of contract are equally under the protection of the law and the actions of their members subject to its restraints.”

Justice Miller continues, “In this country, the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with implied consent to this government and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if anyone aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.”

Supreme Court Rulings Impact
After deciding that the Court had jurisdiction, Justice Miller proceeded to divide disputes like the one before the Court into three categories.

First, in cases about clearly defined private trusts, the Court was responsible for seeing that property so dedicated went to its intended purpose, even if such a responsibility meant examining doctrine. 

Second, in cases about independent churches, the Court must apply the same rules, it would apply to other such voluntary organizations, leaving the majority of members or the congregation officers (as church rules specified) to decide on church doctrine.

Third, in cases about churches affiliated with larger denominations, the Court should operate by the principle that “whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final.”

Miller recognized that the latter approach differed from that in Britain, where judges routinely made such determinations, but he reasoned that whereas Britain did not grant full religious freedom, “[i]n this country, the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.”

Court basically said that the rules of denomination govern the church's ecclesiastical affairs
Because the members of the church voluntarily associated themselves with a denomination, its rules governed ecclesiastical affairs. In the case at hand, both the majority of the congregation and the church hierarchy supported the anti-slavery faction, with whom the Court therefore sided.

Justice Nathan Clifford authored a dissent, in which Justice David Davis joined, essentially disputing jurisdiction in the case of the court whose decision the majority was reviewing.

Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral (1952) and Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church (1969) later affirmed Watson’s principle of preventing courts from determining the true beliefs of a church. Presbyterian Church classified Watson as being “informed by First Amendment considerations.”

The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints presented this their motion to dismiss the Gaddy lawsuit.  In their motion they said:

Ms. Gaddy’s Complaint essentially asks this Court to convene a modern-day inquisition into the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”). She asks this Court to be the inquisitor and to use its Article III power to pass judgment on the Church’s doctrines. Each of Ms. Gaddy’s claims is based on her allegations that the Church’s fundamental religious teachings are false. Ms. Gaddy’s claims would require this Court to adjudicate questions of profound theological import for the Church. For example, the Court would be required to answer the following questions:

 • Did God and Jesus Christ appear to Joseph Smith, the Church’s founder, in 1820? • Is the Book of Mormon the word of God? 

• Are other books of the Church’s canonical scripture true? None of these questions belongs in a courtroom. 

The law does not call on judges or juries to determine the truth or falsity of any religion. It is not the province of judges or juries to determine whether Moses parted the Red Sea, whether Noah predicted and survived the flood, whether Mohammed ascended to heaven, whether Buddha achieved a state of enlightenment, whether Jesus walked on water, or whether Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ. Each of these issues lies outside the purview of our legal system. Any pronouncement by a judge or a jury that God does—or does not—exist would be meaningless. The same is true for the various ways people have experienced God and used words to describe such experiences. Any trial seeking to adjudicate such religious issues makes a mockery of both the court and religion No wonder, then, that the law in this country prohibits lawsuits like Ms. Gaddy’s. The First Amendment provides, in relevant part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. I. The United States Supreme Court has for almost 150 years explained that “[t]he law knows no heresy” and “[i]n this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all.” Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 728 (1871). “The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires.” Emp’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). In short, the First Amendment prohibits the state—including the judiciary— from wading into disputes rooted in religious doctrine. The government may not declare one religion true and another false. The questions presented by Ms. Gaddy’s Complaint are quintessentially ones of faith and doctrine. According to her Complaint, Ms. Gaddy has lost her faith in the Church’s teachings. The First Amendment protects her right to believe—or disbelieve—whatever she chooses.

Then it was up to Judge Richard Shelby to rule on the motion to dismiss the case.  He ruled to dismiss the case and wrote:

Here, the Church argues the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses bar each of Gaddy’s claims. The Tenth Circuit has analogized such an argument to a government official’s defense of qualified immunity.45 That is, if the First Amendment applies “to the statements and materials on which plaintiffs have based their claims, then the plaintiffs have no claim for which relief may be granted.”

Gaddy’s fraud claims relate principally to three of the Church’s alleged misrepresentations of material fact: 

• Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ during the First Vision

• Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates inscribed with reformed Egyptian characters using “interpreters” given to him from God

• Joseph Smith accurately translated writings from Egyptian papyri about the Hebrew prophet Abraham into the Church’s scripture known as the Book of Abraham.

Each of these alleged misrepresentations directly implicates the Church’s core beliefs. Because a statement’s falsity is an essential element of fraud claims, adjudicating these claims would require the court to do exactly what the Supreme Court has forbidden—evaluate the truth or falsity of the Church’s religious beliefs.73 This court can no more determine whether Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ or translated with God’s help gold plates or ancient Egyptian documents, than it can opine on whether Jesus Christ walked on water or Muhammed communed with the archangel Gabriel. The First Amendment prohibits these kinds of inquiries in courts of law.

Grounds for Appeal

Here is why the plaintiff should appeal Judge Shelby’s original motion to dismiss on the grounds that

It was based upon the Watson v Jones (1871-72) case that clearly denies 14th amendment rights to all of their members: Second, in cases about independent churches the Court must apply the same rules it would apply to other such voluntary organizations, leaving the majority of members or the congregation officers (as church rules specified) to decide on church doctrine. Third, in cases about churches affiliated with larger denominations, the Court should operate by the principle that “whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final.”  Both of these aspects of the opinion were correct in the case before the court dealing with property-but if applied in this case before the court today would actually eliminate the 14th amendment rights of the members of the Church by not allowing them to be treated equally or fairly when filing a fraud suit. Their inability to file a fraud suit was not based upon the merits of the case but based upon a decision from the Supreme Court dealing with Church property.  By dismissing the case by saying the government could not rule on a church matter, all persons partied to this suit lost their 14th amendment rights of equal protection of the law by denying them without merit their redress for:

Common-Law Fraud
Fraud in the Inducement
Fraudulent Concealment
Civil Rico 18 U.S.C 1962(c)
Intentional Infliction of emotional distress
 

The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  Judge Shelby’s motion to dismiss failed to take into consideration the actual first amendment text. 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- Since the Judge is not Congress he could actually make a ruling in a fraud case dealing with a religious organization
Abridging free speech, Judge Shelby actually abridged the free speech of the people bringing the suit by dismissing it.  Therefore, if he argued that Court could not do (A) then he surely could not do (B)
To petition the Government for redress of grievances.  Here, Judge Shelby dismissed the case and through his dismissal actually took away the 1st amendment rights of the people who were trying to legally request their abilities through the court action.  Again if the Judge ruled the case could not be heard in court (A) and that was shown to be either wrong or incorrect, then he compounded the problem by failing to allow (B) and (C).
3. The application of Watson (1871-1872) upon this case is based upon the powers taken by the Supreme Court in Marbury V Madison (1803)

This decision goes against Article III and Article V of the Constitution
Justice Marshall was acting Secretary of State at the time of the Commissions and failed to process these commissions correctly. As such it was his fault that the judges were not appointed.  Then acting as Chief Justice he heard the case ruling that the Supreme Court had the power of Judicial Review- not mentioned in Article III of the Constitution nor given by Congress as stated in Article III as well as effectively amending the Constitution (Article V) which was not done by a means recognized by the Constitution. 
This may be a great lesson for all people.  Watch what you get yourself into before you join.  However, also see what the government should and can do for you.  This case is clearly the use of individual rights against the individuals it was trying to help in the first place.  It is also a good place to do some evangelism.  Be very careful of some people’s or church’s claims that they have the truth yet have to mislead people.  Would the true Church have to do this?  Would the true Church have to have so many stories?  Brothers and sisters, be glad that you are Catholic and believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Watch out for cults or churches who make claims that they are a true church that was re-established sometime in the past.  Go back to the real Apostles and real Apostolic Church, not one with imaginary claims.  If you do, you will stay out of court here and there in the hereafter.