School 2 - Jehovah's Witness Children

This TWO-PAGE section contains SCHOOL-HOMESCHOOLING court cases involving/affecting Children of Jehovah's Witnesses and their JW Parents. If you are looking for court cases involving adult Jehovah's Witnesses who are employed as School Teachers or other School Employees, then click this link to go to our JEHOVAH'S WITNESS SCHOOL TEACHERS - EMPLOYEES webpage available at our JW EMPLOYEES website.

In the Fall semester of 2015, in Jamaica, a "tempest in a teapot" erupted when St. Hilda's High School in St Ann selected as that year's "Head Girl" a student who had not been thoroughly vetted. It was only after the selection had already been made that the Principal noted that the student's original application submitted three years previous indicated that the student was a "Jehovah's Witness". The student's mother had so written. Since the various duties of "Head Girl" involved many activities deemed to be "religious" and "patriotic", or otherwise violated the beliefs and practices of the WatchTower Cult, the Principal compounded her first mistake by rescinding the selection -- again without fully vetting the matter.

It was only after Island liberals, such as the National Parent-Teacher Association of Jamaica, media members, etc., began screaming "religious discrimination" by the Anglican owned and operated high school that both the student and her mother were personally interviewed, and both denied being "Jehovah's Witnesses". At the time of the application three years previous, the mother and daughter occasionally attended their local Kingdom Hall, but neither had ever been baptized as a member. The student even assured the Principal that she would fulfill the duties of "Head Girl". However, instead of reinstating the student as "Head Girl", the Principal maintained the rescission "given the 'potential' for conflict". The Principal's decision was endorsed by the local Anglican Bishop. Notably, at this very time, an Anglican school in Zimbabwe was being sued by the WatchTower Cult for expelling four students who claimed to be JWs, who were refusing to attend daily chapel services with the rest of the student body.

Vincent McNeil, an "Elder" at the Vineyard Town Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in St Andrew also endorsed the school's decision, stating, "I am not condemning the principal and other administrators who might have made that decision. It's a reasonable stand that the administration has taken. There are certain things that, if she was a baptised Jehovah's Witness, she would conscientiously object to." Vincent McNeil explained that one of his own daughters had in the past declined appointment as "Head Girl" of St Andrew High School for Girls on grounds that there could be a conflict of conscience. McNeil acknowledged that certain beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses diverged radically from those of orthodox Christians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses' resistance to ecumenism.

Readers, this mess is simply a typical unnecessary mess that can be found occurring daily in Jamaica from that island's best and brightest. I learned decades ago to be extremely suspect of Americans who repeatedly vacation in that sewer.

As his student visa neared expiration, an immigrant sought a permanent visa. Claiming to immigration officials be an unbaptized Jehovah's Witness, student claimed that the JWs had "studied the Bible" with him twice a week for 10 months, took him to Sunday meetings, and gave him large quantities of WatchTower literature, but then stopped when he hesitated to get baptized until after his immigration status was resolved.

Despite displaying substantial knowledge of JW beliefs and practices, hearing officials began to quiz student on his familiarity with the Bible. It quickly became apparent that student knew nearly NOTHING about the Bible. He knew only that the Creation account was in the "Old Testament" ("Hebrew Scriptures" in JWese), and that Armageddon was in the "New Testament" ("Greek Scriptures" in JWese). Student credited his ignorance of the Bible to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses actually "study WatchTower literature", not the Bible.

HYPOCRITE JW ELDERS

One of the sub-topics which the editors of this website have repeatedly postponed for years is that of JW Children being denied the opportunities presented by participating in extracurricular and even regular school activities. It is an undeniable FACT that for decades that literally tens of thousands of children of Jehovah's Witness Parents have been denied opportunities to play musical instruments in school bands and orchestras, and sing in school choruses, as well as denied opportunities to play various sports, and denied opportunities from engaging in other school activities.

Although the WatchTower Cult itself attempts to lay the blame for any negative consequences of such on the shoulders of JW Parents, Cult insiders know full well that it is the leaders of the WatchTower Cult itself whom are to blame for this policy, and its enforcement by JW Parents. This very editor was initially permitted in elementary school to play sports, play in the band, participate in annual plays and other similar activities, by their "weak" JW Parents. However, when this editor "grew" in the Cult towards "Baptism", this editor was REQUIRED by the local Body of Elders to quit the band, quit the sports team, and stop every other extracurricular association with non-JWs in order to "qualify" for Baptism.

This long overdue stump speech was motivated by a February 2017 news article which featured JW Elder Benjamin Reeves, of the Sheridan, Wyoming Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses delivering a eulogy at Kelly Walsh High School during the "life celebration" conducted for a recently deceased 16 year-old Jehovah's Witness named Aurora Lynn Rohrer, of Casper, Wyoming. An apparently extremely popular student, Aurora Rohrer, interestingly was a member of the school's DANCE TEAM. Rohrer died from injuries received during an automobile accident which had occurred on a Saturday morning as "Rory" Rohrer and a female friend traveled out-of-town to attend a high school wrestling competition in which the Jehovah's Witness teenager's BOYFRIEND was competing.

This instance of JW Elder hypocrisy is not a rarity. There have been numerous news articles over the recent two decades or so of children of Jehovah's Witness Parents having won some scholastic award in which it is also mentioned that the JW Student had been participating in multiple other extracurricular and school activities. The lesson is that current JW Students desiring to participate in extracurricular and other school activities should NOT allow themselves to be bullied out of such either by overbearing JW Parents nor overbearing JW Elders.

Amongst the inductees into the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Athletics Hall of Fame, in May 2017, was Duane Fischer. Duane Fischer was one of the most decorated wrestlers in UW-Oshkosh history -- winning WIAC titles in each of his last three seasons, while capping his career with an All-America performance in 1986. Since graduating from UW-Oshkosh in 1987, Duane Fischer has dedicated his life as a Minister for Jehovah's Witnesses. Fischer became an Elder in the Oshkosh Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1998. Duane Fisher has assisted with the wrestling teams at Oshkosh North High School and Webster Stanley Middle School. Duane Fischer resides in Central Wisconsin with his wife, Lisa Fischer.

Alan John Miller was born in South Australia, in 1963, to devout Jehovah's Witness Parents, Alan and Maxine Miller. A. J. Miller spent his formative years in quite a mentally disturbing environment. In 1966-67, when Miller was about 4 years-old, the WatchTower Society began to teach that Jesus Christ would return to Earth in October 1975 to rid the planet of all evil (all non-JWs) in the Battle of Armageddon. Typical of nearly all Jehovah's Witness families during that time period, every spare moment was spent preaching door-to-door to warn the general public of their impending doom if they refused to convert to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The WatchTower Society taught its Jehovah's Witness members that they would be held accountable by Jehovah God (i.e., "bloodguilty") for any lives destroyed because of their failure to have warn such ones.

Alan John Miller is reported to have been a "shy, deeply spiritual teenager who came out of his shell only when discussing Jehovah's Witness theology". Typical of children reared by Jehovah's Witness Parents, Alan and his sister, Jenni Miller, not only sacrificed most of their spare time to the activities of the WatchTower Cult, but they reportedly also sacrificed engaging in many of the formative activities in which other children of their ages participated.

October 1975 came and went without any sign of the return of Jesus Christ, and Jehovah's Witnesses around the world were once again forced to deal mentally with yet another second adventist "Great Disappointment". Many adult Jehovah's Witnesses mentally struggled greatly with such. One can only imagine the psychological impact on a 13 year-old whom had known nothing else but the impending doom of most of mankind.

After October 1975, the WatchTower Society told its Jehovah's Witness members that the calculated end of mankind's 6000th anniversary on earth had been accurate, and that Jesus Christ would return at any moment. Instead of slowing down, Jehovah's Witnesses should speed-up their door-knocking, and take full advantage of these unexpected additional days to warn people of their impending doom. At some point, Alan John Miller reportedly applied for and was approved as a Jehovah's Witness "Pioneer" (WatchTower Society term for a full-time proselytizer).

At some point during his teenage years, all this S**T apparently began to wear on young A. J. Miller, since it has been reported that Miller's JW Parents eventually had to seek some sort of mental health treatment for their teenage son. In 1979, at the age of 17, the highly intelligent Alan John Miller discontinued his high school studies and started studying computer science at a local community college. Afterwards, Miller started his own IT consulting business.

Still a devout Jehovah's Witness, around 1983, Alan John Miller married a fellow Jehovah's Witness -- 19-year-old Sheree Newman. The Jehovah's Witness couple eventually had two sons. During this same time period, A. J. Miller was first promoted to a "Ministerial Servant" (deacon) within his Jehovah's Witness congregation, and eventually Miller was promoted to being an "Elder" (minister) in his congregation. Sometime in the latter 1990s, Miller's lifelong odyssey in the WatchTower Cult ended when Miller supposedly became involved with another female, and he allegedly was "disfellowshipped".

Starting around 2004, A. J. Miller began proclaiming himself to be the reincarnated "Jesus Christ". Since then, Miller has reportedly developed his own cult with its own beliefs and practices -- some of which are loosely based on his previous WatchTower beliefs (anti-trinitarianism and forecasting apocryphal dates) -- and has attracted quite a following of financial supporters. Miller also has been accused of having a series of mistresses -- each of whom Miller has claimed to be the reincarnated "Mary Magdalene".

EDWARD ANGELO CAMPOCHIARO ET AL v. TOWN OF PLAINVILLE, CONNECTICUT ET AL,EDWARD ANGELO CAMPOCHIARO ET AL v. TOWN OF PLAINVILLE, CONNECTICUT ET AL,and EDWARD ANGELO CAMPOCHIARO ET AL v. DEPT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, and WELFARE were related 1974-1980? federal and state Connecticut court cases. In October 1974, Edward A. Campochario, age 33, and Frances R. Campochario, age 38, a Puerto Rican Jehovah's Witness Couple living in Plainville, Connecticut, filed a TWO MILLION DOLLAR federal lawsuit against the Town of Plainville, the Superintendent of Schools, the Board of Education, and various School Teachers, in which these Puerto Rican Jehovah's Witnesses accused the named defendants of failing to properly diagnose and properly treat the exact learning disability of the JW Couple's eight year-old MENTALLY RETARDED SON, Edward Campochiaro, JR. The Campochiaro's lawsuit went on to charge local school officials and teachers with "religious harassment" -- alleging that school officials and teachers were blaming their retarded son's various problems at school on the family's home religious training, which was based on WatchTower principles, rather than properly diagnosing and properly treating Edward Jr's REAL problems.

Based on extremely limited available info, it appears that these allegations, and possibly the federal lawsuit itself, were dismissed in part or whole, because by January 1976, a hearing was conducted by a local board whose goal appears to have been to assess the situation regarding the Campochario's son and his teachers. The Campocharios apparently were not happy with the results of such, and thereafter fought at both the federal and state levels to access various school records which they claimed had been kept from them. In any event, in true Jehovah's Witness fashion, over the many years, the Campocharios probably cost their small local school system hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and administrative expenses which could have been better spent on educating Plainville school children.

COLE v. COLE was a circa 1985 Georgia custody court decision. Maurice Cole and Mary Cole, of Rockdale County, Georgia, had divorced sometime in the early 1980s. Thereafter, Mary Cole converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and per WatchTower teachings that discourage JW Children from participating in school sports programs, Mary Cole told her son, Rod Cole, whom she had physical custody, that he could no longer play on his high school basketball team. Maurice Cole then went to court, and sought and obtained custody of Rod, and moved back from Dekalb County, so that Rod could continue playing for Rockdale County. After high school, Rod Cole went on to star as a guard for the University of Georgia Bulldogs from 1987-1991.

**************

BOBRIK v. HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT was a 1998 Washington State federal court case. This lawsuit was filed by a Jehovah's Witness Father, named Robert Bobrik, of Seattle, Washington, on behalf of his then 13 year-old son, Jim Bobrik, a student at Sylvester Middle School. On February 9, 1998, a confrontation arose between Jim Bobrik and his classroom teacher during the morning recitation of the "Pledge of Allegiance", and Bobrik was told to leave the classroom. According to media reports, Robert Bobrik contacted an attorney as soon as his son told him what had occurred, and a telephoned complaint was made to the school principal, followed by a written complaint. The school reportedly followed up on the issue, and there were no further incidents between Bobrik and the teacher.

However, in March 1998, the Bobriks continued to push the issue, and notified the school district that they would file a federal lawsuit if certain further demands were not met -- including payment of "money damages". According to media reports, the Bobriks also wanted the teacher and the principal disciplined. According to media reports, the Bobriks also demanded that the school district create a special district-wide program which would not only educate teachers and students about First Amendment rights, but would discipline any violators.

The school district reportedly issued a written apology to the Bobriks. However, a federal lawsuit was filed by the Bobriks in April 1998. The Bobriks claimed, and the media repeatedly reported, that Jim Bobrik had been made to stand outside in the rain for 15 minutes. The school district explained that Bobrik stood outside in typical Seattle weather -- under a shelter designed to protect students from the rain. The Bobriks claimed that Jim Bobrik had done nothing that morning but what he had done for years during the morning recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance -- stand quietly while the other students recited the Pledge.

However, the school district alleged that Jim Bobrik had been "disrespectful" that particular morning -- but did not fully explain the accusation. The school explained that it already had an existing policy that did not even require students to stand during the recitation of the Pledge, which Bobrik had done. All the school required was for dissenters to remain quiet while other students recited the Pledge. There are some "hints" in the various media reports that this was the first day of class shared by Bobrik and the teacher in question, and that when the teacher confronted Bobrik about "whatever" conduct caught the teacher's attention that Bobrik may not have respectfully presented his "case", and may not have even told the teacher that his conduct was due to his religious beliefs.

The lawsuit was apparently settled out of court, so what actually occurred that day will never be known. Nor is it known how much the school district may have paid to make this nuisance lawsuit go away. Click HERE to read another Robert Bobrik federal lawsuit.

*****************

SCOTT FINNEY, BERNADETTE FINNEY, AND SCARLETT FINNEY v. THE HILLS GRAMMAR SCHOOL was a 1997-99 Australia Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission disability discrimination case brought by Jehovah's Witness Parents of a four year-old child with spina bifada, who had been denied admission to Kindergarten at a private school. This case was yet another typical disability discrimination case which resulted from governmental legislation requiring private institutions to essentially "drop everything they were doing" and kowtow to the needs of a single disabled individual no matter the expense to the institution, nor the detriment caused to the hundreds of others, included other disabled persons, served by the institution.

The Hills Grammar School was a private, not-for-profit, K-12 school that was located in quite a unique environmental setting -- rustic, or "bushland", and on a hillside. There were multiple classroom buildings scattered across a 25 acre campus -- many of which were multi-stories, and many built into the hillside. Most paved walkways between buildings include multiple series of steps, but there were also winding, indirect unpaved paths and driveways, both of which included steep inclines/declines. The name of this school was chosen for a reason.

The Hills Grammar School already had a small number of children with mostly emotional and mental disabilities enrolled at the School, but also had a few students with physical disabilities such as sight impairment, hearing impairment, amputated limbs, and cerebral palsy. The school's administration and staff made a reasonable assessment of 4 year-old Scarlett Finney attending the school and came to a reasonable conclusion in not offering admission. Factors included her use of a wheelchair and her catheterization needs. The school also took into consideration not only the present, but also the future based on the assumption that she would continue at the school for some years. Specifically, the school had anticipated that if Finney was admitted to the school that eventually the entire campus would be required to be made wheelchair-accessible at an estimated expense of $1.1 million. Current expenses would include extra training to deal with Finney's issues for all teachers, plus the hiring of one additional staffer simply to assist Finney as a student, plus making the buildings and classrooms used by Finney handicap accessible, and essentially constructing a special restroom to accommodate her catheterization needs.

The Hills Grammar School's budget came 75% from fees paid by student's parents, and 25% from government subsidies. Even with special government grants here and there for Finney's special needs, her admission would still result in excess expenses which would have to be made up by higher fees paid by the other students' parents. In the two years prior to the year that Finney had sought admission, the school had an operating excess that averaged $170,000.00 annually, but that did not include any retirement of the schools $5.4 million DEBT.

The Commission's decision was preordained in our opinion. The Finney's "experts" and the Commission did everything possible to minimize Scarlett Finney's "issues", and maximize the school's unwillingness to accommodate such. In the end, the Commission ruled completely against the school, and totally for the Finneys. Interestingly, after doing so, the Commission then gave school administration the "opportunity" to meet with the winning Jehovah's Witness Parents and seek a "settlement". Given that the school had ZERO bargaining power at that point, the Finney's could have demanded that the name of the school be changed to "Finney's Grammar School". In actuality, the outcome is not in the published decision, thus is unknown.

*****************

COMMONWEALTH v. LOUISE TXXXXXX was a 2001 Virginia court case which involved a Richmond, Virginia Jehovah's Witness, named Louise Txxxxx. Louise T. was the African-American grandmother and legal guardian of two children. The extremely one-sided source for this case summary alleges that this Jehovah's Witness GrandMother had fought the Richmond Public School System "for years" to get an adequate education for her two grandchildren (who were barely "years old" themselves) -- without success. So, she finally decided to start home schooling them. The source alleges that Louise told school officials that she was home schooling the two children, but that allegation does not match with their further hint that criminal charges were not filed against Louise by the School System until a Social Worker reported to the School System that the two children were not being sent to school.

When Louise appeared in Richmond Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in March 2001, she and her many supporters packed the courtroom. The Presiding Overseer of Louise's Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses was there, as were a number of other Jehovah's Witnesses from around the Richmond area. Karen Mann of NEW SYSTEM SCHOOL INC. was present to testify on Louise's behalf. New System School, Inc. is a not-for-profit school system formed by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witness families who want an alternative to public school systems for their childrens' education. New System School, Inc. was started in North Carolina in 1980, and incorporated in Missouri in 1985. Associated corporations have since been formed in many states. New System School, Inc.boasts students and faculty in 35 states, and several foreign countries.

It appears that Louise, her supporters, and her attorney were extremely well prepared to answer the arguments presented by the Richmond Public School System, which they also had well anticipated in advance. Scott Somerville, of the Home School Legal Defense Association, of which New System School, Inc. is believed to be affiliated, was there to defend Louise T. Somerville alleged that Louise had been home schooling the two children all school-year long, and that Louise had enrolled the children in the New System School, Inc., an "umbrella school" with members all over America. It appears from the source material that Somerville first tried to explain that New System School, Inc. operated under the "private school law". Under Virginia law, families could also claim a religious exemption from the compulsory attendance law. However, given that the Judge eventually continued the case so as to give Louise 30-days to submit the proper paperwork to the Court and the Richmond Public School System, it appears that Louise had not complied with as many of the legalities as the source would have readers to believe. Especially interesting is how Somerville and his client dealt with the Virginia law in question, which states:

"A school board shall excuse from attendance at school any pupil who, together with his parents, by reason of bona fide religious training or belief, is conscientiously opposed to attendance at school."

Apparently, in order to continue with the defense that Louise had enrolled the two children at New System School, Inc. prior to the start of the school year; and that Louise had been home schooling the children in accordance with New System School, Inc requirements; and to take advantage of the cited Virginia law; THEN LOUISE WAS REQUIRED TO SWEAR THAT IT WAS HER CONSCIENTIOUS BELIEF THAT SENDING HER GRANDCHILDREN TO PUBLIC SCHOOL WAS A SIN.

Louise's daughter, the mother of the children, was also present for the hearing, and she testified that she also wanted her children home schooled. Judge Taylor asked her: "Do you understand that your children are being educated by their grandmother for religious reasons? Is that what you want?" She testified: "I do understand. That's what I want!"

After the hearing, Louise reportedly told Attorney Scott Somerville: "I appreciate all you did, but I wouldn't be the person I am if I didn't insist that all the glory for this victory belongs to our great God Jehovah!" Something tells me that Jehovah would just as soon not be connected with that court victory -- assuming it really was a victory, because, interestingly, the source does not tell us if Louise actually provided the required documentation by 4/23/2001, nor does it tell us anything else that happened after the March 23, 2001 hearing.

**************

In 1996, a family of Jehovah's Witnesses Home Schoolers began to be harassed by some nit-picky school official who actually expected compliance with the law. Dennis and Eunice Lincoln of Clinton, Iowa, had several children with various "special needs". Reading between the lines of the again one-sided source, it appears that these Jehovah's Witness Parents began homeschooling their children without meeting all the necessary legal requirements. It appears that when the local public school system eventually discovered that the Lincoln children were not attending public school, that some sort of agreement was reached with the Lincolns to allow them to continue (or maybe start) homeschooling, and do so per legal requirements.

The Lincolns were supposed to have had their home education program approved by the Special Education Director of the Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency prior to the start of the 1995-6 school year. Since the 1995-6 school year was well into the Spring semester, the Lincolns were permitted to continue, but they were supposed to submit weekly reports, including lesson plans and samples of their children's work. When the Lincolns failed to submit any samples of the children's work, the Special Education Director informed them that would not approve "any" home education program for the following 1996-97 school year.

Enter Home School Legal Defense Association attorney Scott Somerville to the rescue. Somerville threatened the Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency that if it did not approve a compliant home education program for the Lincoln family for the following 1996-97 school year, then he would file a lawsuit for damages under the then still alive, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). My guess is that Somerville's threat worked. I don't know, because, again, the source fails to disclose the final result, or provide any further details beyond the point where it "appears" the JWs won.

**************

IN RE CHRISTY ANN S. was a 1995-6 Overland County, Tennessee "juvenile court" case which involved a family of Jehovah's Witness Home Schoolers, who apparently intentionally disobeyed the home schooling law as it then existed in Tennessee, with regard to their 10th grader daughter. Apparently, then Tennessee law required a home school teacher to have a bachelor's degree, which Christy Ann's mother (presumed the teacher) did not. As an alternative, however, then Tennessee law did provide that non-degreed parents could home school their children if they were affiliated with a "church-related school" which met the standards for accreditation and membership in one of six private associations that were listed in the statute. As Jehovah's Witnesses, whose beliefs are not consistent with any other orthodox religion, and whose beliefs prohibit any official affiliation with any other religious organization, this JW Family refused to join any one of the six sanctioned religious associations. Rather than obeying Tennessee law, and foregoing home schooling, this JW Family simply decided to disobey the law.

Note that this was a "juvenile court" case, which means that the party involved was Christy herself -- a 15-16 year-old teenager. Whether there was another court case involving the parents, I do not know, because the one-sided source provided information on this case only. Apparently, under then Tennessee law, the Board of Education had few options under which to legally enforce school attendance. Thus, the BoE was probably forced to prosecute Christy under the only "truancy" statute available simply to get the home school issue addressed.

Enter the Home School Legal Defense Association to the rescue. The then Tennessee truancy law under which Christy had been charged was apparently one of those antiquated state laws that had not been updated since before the Flood. Under that truancy law, Christy was labeled an "unruly" or "delinquent" child, which apparently was defined under that law as a child who failed to obey their parents. Obviously, Christy was neither an "unruly" nor "delinquent" child, de facto nor de jure. In fact, Christy had done exactly what her parents told her to do. The Judge dismissed this January 1996 case. Interestingly, in March 1996, Tennessee added the Tennessee Association of Church-Related Schools (TACRS) to the list of organizations which give legal status to church-related schools in Tennessee. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses not-for-profit New System School, Inc. also refused to become a member of TACRS, because its' statement of faith read:

I/we declare that the leadership of our school is of good moral character; and subscribes to the historic creeds of the Christian church (Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon); and recognizes the authority of the Scriptures in all matters of faith and practice. Further, we agree to abide by the TACRS Education Guidelines.

To kowtow to the Jehovah's Witnesses, TACRS agreed to start offering an "Associate" membership, with the statement:

I/we declare that the leadership of our school is of good moral character and we agree to abide by the TACRS Education Guidelines.

There is no further info about the Christy case, nor whether New System School, Inc. actually affiliated with TACRS.

**************

AARON T. MORRIS v. MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. In February 1998, Martin Morris and Sandra Morris, of Manteca, California, filed a formal complaint with the local school district after a Manteca High School metal shop teacher used "derogatory language" toward their physically disabled and learning-challenged 19 year-old son during that son's fourth semester under that same shop teacher. The shop teacher also allegedly threw a welding glove at Aaron T. Morris, leaving a dirty smudge on his shirt. The Jehovah's Witness Parents also filed a criminal complaint with the local police, which alleged violation of their son's civil rights, but the local District Attorney declined to criminally prosecute the shop teacher after reviewing the evidence.

Local media reported that the metal shop teacher had taught at Manteca High School for 24 years, and interviewed students of that shop teacher gave the shop teacher mixed reviews, but none indicated that he was a "strict" instructor. Rather, one student even indicated that the shop teacher would "joke" with his students at their own level, and that Aaron Morris may have simply misinterpreted the teacher's words and actions. The shop teacher was placed on paid administrative leave in February, but was placed on unpaid administrative leave in March when termination proceedings were initiated. In June 1998, the School District and the shop teacher reached a settlement whereby the teacher resigned in exchange for a $14,000.00 payment.

In August 1998, a lawsuit seeking $100,000.00 in damages was filed against the school district and the shop teacher. The lawsuit alleged assault, battery, sexual harassment, as well as mental and emotional distress to Aaron Morris during a class session. Outcome unknown, but probably settled for substantial amount if not full request.

**************

IN RE ROBERT H. was a 1995-6 Sumner County, Tennessee "juvenile court" case, which involved a second family of Jehovah's Witness Home Schoolers, who apparently also intentionally disobeyed the home schooling law as it then existed in Tennessee, and as a result, also got their child charged with truancy. No further details.

**************

IN RE HARTSTUFF was a 1992 Gibson County, Tennessee "truancy" case which involved the daughter of Gale and Lora Hartstuff. HSLDA assisted with getting the case dismissed despite the fact that New System School apparently did not meet state requirements at that time.

**************

TEXAS v. MATA (1987), TEXAS v. MATA (1988), and MATA v. SCHOOL BOARD (1993) were related Texas criminal and civil court cases which involved a Jehovah's Witness Parent, named Christopher L. Mata, and his minor daughter, named Ester May Mata. During the 1987-88 school year, Ester Mata was a student at Kindred Elementary School in the South San Antonio Independent School District. Ester Mata supposedly suffered from stomach aches. With the cooperation of Principal Casillas, Christopher Mata began taking Ester out of school during lunch hours, despite the school's closed campus policy. These off-campus lunches supposedly alleviated Ester's stomach problems. Eventually, however, Principal Casillas saw fit to terminated the practice, and he and Mata apparently argued. Thereafter, Chris Mata did not return Ester to school. After Ester had been absent for five days, the school district sent its attendance officer to Mata's home. Caro notified Mara that he was being charged with "truancy", and attempted to serve Mata, but Mara refused to accept the papers. Mara was thereafter convicted by a justice of the peace, and ordered to return Ester to school. Instead, Mata apparently began teaching Ester at home and continued to do so for the remainder of the 1987-88 school year.

When the 1988-89 school year began in the fall, Ester did not report to school. Since there was no report to the school district that Mata had again commenced home schooling, Caro again visited the Mata residence. Mata admitted that he had not yet begun teaching Ester for that school year, but refused Caro's offer of assistance as well as the school's request to view his home classes and to see a curriculum. Mara was again charged with violating the attendance law. For a second time, the justice of the peace convicted Mata for these violations.

Mata appealed both convictions, consolidating them in a single appeal to the Bexar County Court. On appeal, the court ruled that the state had made a prima facie case of Mata's violations of the attendance laws. As a remedy, the court ordered Mata to submit to a home visit by the school district to determine if he was in fact teaching Ester at home. After that visit occurred, the court dismissed the charges. Individually and as Ester's guardian, Mata filed a lawsuit in USDC against the school district, alleging religious discrimination and malicious prosecution for violation of the attendance laws. The USDC dismissed all of Mata's claims, except the malicious prosecution claim, based on the running of the statute of limitations. The court later granted motions for summary judgment dismissing Mata's malicious prosecution claim and all of Ester's claims. On appeal, the USCA affirmed, stating in part:

"A review of the record demonstrates that Mata's vociferous protestations notwithstanding, he has raised no genuine issues of material fact as to at least two essential elements of malicious prosecution: lack of probable cause, and the plaintiff's innocence. Certainly the school district had probable cause to charge Mata ;with violating the attendance law given the undisputed fact that Ester was absent from school for the statutory period without excuse, and was not being schooled at home at the time. Moreover, two convictions by the justice of the peace, both of which were recognized as valid on appeal, eliminate Mata's claim of innocence.

"The issues to which Mata repeatedly refers as creating a genuine issue of material fact are either irrelevant or flatly contradicted by his own deposition. We have made clear that a plaintiff cannot create a genuine issue of material fact with bald and conclusionary statements. Neither can he manufacture a dispute simply by contradicting his prior testimony or selectively presenting the facts. We do not question Mata's subjective belief that all parties with which he has dealt, including the district court, have persecuted him. Such a belief, however, does not create an issue of material fact; yet that, in a nutshell, is what Mata argues on appeal.

"The record demonstrates beyond cavil that Mata has received fair treatment by the school officials, the justice of the peace, and the district court. Regrettably, the record demonstrates that Mata and his attorney have not responded in kind. Most importantly, the record reveals that Mata has failed to raise genuine issues of material fact on at least two of the elements of malicious prosecution; therefore his claim cannot survive summary judgment.

"... Mata also alleges that Ester's treatment and his prosecution are based on religious discrimination. Mata's arguments on this point are scattered conclusionary references to community and school bias against Jehovah's Witnesses. To the extent that he argues this issue at all, he presents nothing more than bald assertions, insufficient to survive a summary judgment motion.

**************

ROSARIO v. BOARD OF EDUCATION was a 2002 New York federal appellate court decision in which the "hero" of the case was an 11 year-old Jehovah's Witness sixth grade student, named Lisette Santos. On June 8, 1998, the Principal at Intermediate School 74 in New York City, via the school's intercom system, called for a moment of silence in honor of a fifth-grader, named Christopher Lee, who had recently drowned. In the sixth grade classroom of Lisette Santos, substitute teacher Mildred Rosario was met with a number of challenging questions after the moment of silence ended. First, "Where is Christopher Lee?", to which Rosario responded "heaven", followed by even more questions, such as, "What is heaven like?", or, "What does God look like?"

Given that the vast majority of her class seemed intensely interested about death, afterlife, God, etc., Rosario asked her class if they wanted to discuss these topics. Nearly all responded positively. Yet, recognizing that some students might not be comfortable discussing such topics, Rosario told her class that anyone who did not wish to participate in the discussion group, they could go to the back of the room and read or use the computers. One or two students left, but Lisette Santos remained in the discussion group. At the end of the discussion, Rosario told the discussion group that if any student wanted to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior that she would be willing to pray with them, which did occur.

After the class ended (unclear whether a single class, or at end of day), Lisette Santos telephoned her legal guardian (her sister-in-law) and reported what had occurred. Santos reportedly claimed that she had been frightened by what Rosario had said and done. Santos' guardian came to the school, and together they reported Rosario to the Principal. Rosario was removed from her classroom the next day, and four days later, Rosario was fired, and had her teacher's license revoked . Rosario thereafter filed a federal lawsuit. The federal trial and appellate courts ruled against Rosario, stating that a school board may have a "compelling interest in avoiding Establishment Clause violations", which may justify firing a teacher who engages in religious discussion. When asked to comment on the teacher's firing, a spokesman for the Watch Tower Society boasted that schools were no place for children to learn how to pray, and that religious instruction was not the job of public school teachers.

**************

In 1988, a Jehovah's Witness Parent, named Susan Marty, apparently threatened Dry Creek Elementary School, in Clovis, California, with a federal "constitutional rights" lawsuit after teachers confiscated some "Anti-Valentines" which Marty had prepared for her two sons to exchange with their classmates during the school's Valentine's Day celebrations. The "Anti-Valentines" supposedly contained the WatchTower Society's reasonings as to why Valentine's Day is a pagan holiday that should not be celebrated. No further info beyond the reported threat.

**************

WIGFALL v. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES was a 1994-97? California federal court case which involved an African-American Jehovah's Witnesses named Zari Niada Wigfall. Limited details. Zari Wigfall was a college student at Sacramento Community College in 1994, who in all probability heard about the nearly $260,000.00 judgment which her two fellow Jehovah's Witnesses, Lanell Bessard and Tanella Bridges, had just won from Fresno City College in 1994. Zari Wigfall had first been denied a part-time job at Sacramento Community College, due to her refusal to sign the loyalty oath required of all state employees, in the Spring 1994 semester. In Fall 1994, Wigfall again applied for a part-time job at SCC, but was again denied due to her refusal as a Jehovah's Witness to take the standard loyalty oath required of all state employees. Wigfall thereafter filed a federal lawsuit using the same legal theory as did Lanell Bessard and Tanella Bridges -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Wigfall also won her lawsuit, but I have been unable to discover how large was her award.

In 1999, Zari Niada Wigfall testified about her "ordeal" in Washington D.C. before a Congressional sub-committee, which related to the fact that the Supreme Court had declared the RFRA unconstitutional (too late for California taxpayers, tho.) Wigfall acknowledged that she had won her lawsuit prior to RFRA being overturned, but she was not asked, and she did not volunteer, how much $$$ she had been awarded.

**************

MAZANEC v. NORTH JUDSON-SAN PIERRE SCHOOL CORP was a 1981-86 Indiana federal court running battle which pitted a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, named the Mazanecs, against their local School District. The Mazanecs were initially represented by two Catholic law professors from the University of Notre Dame: Edward McBlynee Gaffney, Jr. and Charles E. Rice. However, they later obtained other representation, and even represented themselves at certain points. Finally, in 1986, Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., by then a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, re-joined the case.

Prior to the start of the 1979-80 school year, Barbara Mazanec, who declared herself "an ordained Minister" under the WatchTower Society's flickering "brighter light" of back-and-forth interpretations of which JWs they consider to be "ordained ministers", decided that the environment and education provided by the local public schools were incompatible with her family's WatchTower beliefs. So, Pastor Mazanec enrolled her three children, Patricia, Susan, and Angela, in a home school program, called the Santa Fe Community School, for the 1979-80 school term.

After discovering and inquiring as to the Mazanec children's absence from public school, and being informed that they were being home-schooled, James Moore, Superintendent and Local Attendance Officer of the North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation, contacted the Santa Fe Community School, and eventually decided that its' program was barely sufficient to bring the Mazanecs into compliance with the Indiana compulsory education statute.

Prior to the start of the 1980-81 school year, Richard Mazanec and Barbara Mazanec decided to create her own school, the Greenhouse Academy, that would be operated out of the Mazanec home. Barbara Mazanec, who did not have a high school diploma, was the Academy's principal. (Barbara Mazanec also conducted a colon irrigating business out of her home during school hours.) Instruction was given either by Barbara Mazanec, or by one of her children. The Mazanecs intended to supplement Indiana mandated curricula with WatchTower religious and moral instruction.

On August 29, 1980, Superintendent Moore sent a letter to the plaintiffs, informing them that the North Judson-San Pierre public schools had begun classes on August 25, 1980, and that the children of Richard and Barbara Mazanec were not enrolled among the students attending the above-named public schools. Defendant Moore advised the plaintiffs that they had ten days from the date of the receipt of his letter in which to enroll the children in the North Judson-San Pierre public schools, or to provide him with details regarding home-schooling. In a letter, dated September 10, 1980, Barbara Mazanec stated that she was aware of her obligations and rights under Indiana law, and that there would be a slight delay in complying with Moore's request.

On September 22, 1980, Moore swore out a complaint against the Mazanecs with the local Prosecuting Attorney. Moore's decision was based on evidence that the children were seen unsupervised during school hours one month after the start of the term at the public schools, and on the refusal of the Mazanecs to cooperate with Moore in verifying the educational program of the Greenhouse Academy. The Superintendent's efforts to satisfy himself that the Mazanecs were complying with Indiana law were met with what the District Judge later described as the "Mazanec stone-wall."

INDIANA v. MAZANEC. On September 29, 1980, the same day that the Prosecutor filed charges against Richard Mazanec and Barbara Mazanec, the Mazanecs responded to Moore with a letter announcing the opening of the Greenhouse Academy, a legally incorporated private school. This letter described the curriculum of the school in very general terms and expressed the opinion that the letter was sufficient to prove the family was in compliance with Indiana law.

Rather than maintaining a dialogue with the local School District, in the ensuing months, Barbara Mazanec entered into a dialogue with Marilyn Mabry, the State of Indiana Attendance Officer, in Indianapolis, concerning the requirements for the establishment of a home school, and what the Mazanecs needed to do to comply with the compulsory attendance law. In a letter, dated March 30, 1981, Mabry expressed her opinion that the Mazanecs were finally in compliance with Indiana law. However, neither Moore, nor any other local school official, nor the local Prosecutor, were informed by the Mazenecs nor Mabry of the Mazenecs' dialogue with Mabry, nor did they receive a copy of the Mabry-Mazanec letter.

In a letter to Superintendent Moore, dated July 13, 1981, Barbara Mazanec, in the course of announcing that she had filed a federal lawsuit against the Superintendent, the school corporation, and the Prosecutor for malicious prosecution, referred to the letter from the State Attendance Officer. Moore, however, had never saw the Mabry letter, nor had he ever been contacted by Mabry's office.

On August 7, 1981, the state circuit court dismissed the criminal charges pending against the Mazanecs for lack of probable cause. The Prosecutor, believing the dismissal was the product of a technical deficiency, filed a new information accompanied by a new affidavit that the Prosecutor drafted for Moore's signature. In September 1981, the state court once again dismissed the charges. At that point, the Prosecutor decided that the misdemeanor charges did not warrant further consideration by his office.

Despite the fact that nearly all of the Mazanecs' problems were self-inflicted due to their own failures to follow procedures and communicate with the involved parties, these Jehovah's Witnesses continued their federal lawsuit against the North Judson-San Pierre School Corporation; its Superintendent, James F. Moore; David M. Geisler, Prosecuting Attorney for the 44th Judicial Circuit of the State of Indiana; and Marilyn V. Mabry, Indiana State Attendance Officer. Moore, Geisler, and Mabry were all sued in both their official capacities and as individuals. The Mazanecs asserted eight causes of action under the first and fourteenth amendments. The rights allegedly abridged included the right to free exercise of religion, the right of freedom of speech, the right to freedom of association in educational endeavors, the right under the Due Process clause to have their liberty and property interests in the Greenhouse Academy protected, and the right to equal protection of the laws. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

The subsequent court battle involved so many legalities at the USDC and USCA levels that it is difficult to sort out such. There was an unknown USDC ruling in December 1982, which possibly was a dismissal based on a possible decision that the case would better be litigated in state court. However, that decision was possibly reversed and remanded after the Mazanecs amended their complaint, since there was a hearing in USDC in May 1984, following which the USDC entered an opinion dismissing the Mazanecs' complaint. The Mazanecs appealed the May 1984 USDC decision, which was addressed by the USCA in December 1984, and again in May 1985, in which the case was again remanded for a trial, which occurred in July 1985. The USDC found that the requested injunctive relief, which amounted to providing guidelines for state and local officials in applying Indiana's compulsory attendance act, essentially would be an advisory opinion, particularly in light of the fact that there was no continued threat of prosecution. With respect to the damage claims, the district court ruled that all the defendants were entitled to good faith or absolute immunity. The USDC did, however, make one important finding for the Mazanecs. It found that the Mazanec children had received an education equivalent to that available in the public schools. Having so determined, the USDC found it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issues because the state law fully accommodated the constitutional rights asserted. The Mazanecs appealed.

In August 1986, the USCA issued its decision affirming the USDC's decision. While explaining that Barbara Mazanec's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were "moot", due to a change in circumstances, namely, that the three children were then residing in Illinois, the USCA made this interesting, though vague, comment:

"The record indicates that the Mazanec children were sent to Illinois for reasons apart from the circumstances giving rise to this action."

With regard to the Mazanec's claim for "damages", the USCA stated, in part:

The Mazanecs ... argue that the [compulsory education] statute is sufficiently vague to allow the monitoring authorities to harass them because of their religious beliefs and because of their assertion of their right to free speech in the form of establishing a home school.

The problem with the Mazanecs' view of this case is that it is based on the assumption that Mr. Moore initiated the prosecution because of a hostility to home schooling or to Jehovah's Witnesses. The district court found ... that the Mazanecs were prosecuted because they frustrated the attempts at verifying compliance with the law, not because their actions were deemed incapable of meeting the requirements of the law.

The district court found that Mr. Moore made reasonable efforts to discharge his statutory duty to investigate the educational arrangements made for the plaintiffs' children and that, based on the information available at the time, he acted properly in turning this information over to the prosecutor. It is important to emphasize that, despite the Mazanecs' contrary contentions, it was the prosecutor, not Mr. Moore, who made the ultimate decision to press criminal charges and who controlled the course of the prosecution. Thus at one level, ascribing responsibility to Mr. Moore and the school corporation is difficult simply because the harassment, to the extent the acts of the prosecution can be so described, was ultimately the decision of a prosecutor. If the evidence indicated that Moore had given the prosecutor erroneous information or failed to attempt to investigate the situation adequately, this might have been a different case. Given the district court's finding that Mr. Moore's investigation was proper in the context of the plaintiffs' uncooperative attitude, however, the superintendent and the school corporation cannot be held liable for any errors in the exercise of the prosecutor's discretion to continue the prosecution after September 29, 1980.

Although Moore acted properly and in accord with his statutory responsibilities, that does not mean that the statute necessarily passes constitutional muster. Under the circumstances of this case, however, the plaintiffs' conduct leading up to their prosecution undercuts their attempts to attack the statute, and the governmental action, on constitutional grounds. There is no dispute that the Indiana statute allows in theory and in practice the type of home education desired by the Mazanecs. ... There was testimony that 178 home schools were being operated in Indiana at the time of the trial. Thus, to the extent such a right exists, Barbara Mazanec's constitutional right to educate her children as she saw fit was capable of being accommodated under Indiana law provided that there are no material flaws in the language of the statute or in the systematic enforcement of the law by government officials. The problem here is that the alleged wrong, the prosecution, was found to be a product of the Mazanecs' failure to cooperate rather than infirmities in the statute or its application. Since a compulsory education law is in theory constitutional, as is the inevitable enforcement of the law, it is clear that under any such law parents would have to assist state officials charged with monitoring compliance. Thus, even in a state with a constitutionally perfect education law and system, people like the plaintiffs who frustrate state officials in enforcing the compulsory education law will be prosecuted. Under these circumstances the Mazanecs are not the proper parties to be challenging the constitutionality of the statute, or Mr. Moore's method of enforcing it, because the record indicates that it was not the alleged constitutional infirmities that caused their injuries. ...

The Mazanecs devote a considerable portion of their argument to the state's alleged failure to accommodate their first amendment rights by using a less restrictive alternative to criminal prosecution. Once again this theoretically compelling argument is fatally weakened by the plaintiffs' conduct. The less restrictive alternatives suggested all involve parental participation, an item that the district court concluded was not readily available. The area of compulsory education involves a delicate balancing of the first amendment rights of both parents and children and the interests of the state in education. ... In reviewing a statute that seeks to accommodate the competing sides of the balance, or the actions taken pursuant to such a statute, we must have before us parties whose rights were allegedly violated by the state's policy or enforcement. We will not reach out to decide constitutional issues that may arise in a close case on behalf of plaintiffs, like the Mazanecs, whose conduct puts them clearly within the zone in which the government is justified in taking action, including prosecution.

This MAZANEC case is occasionally cited as if this Jehovah's Witness Family had won their five year long court battle simply because the 1985 USDC court found that the Mazanec children had received an "equivalent education" under Indiana law during the 1980-1 school year. However, note carefully how the USCA construed such:

The final issue raised by the Mazanecs is their right to attorney's fees ... . They argue that the district judge's finding that the children received an equivalent education under Indiana law constituted a partial award of the declaratory relief sought. The Mazanecs would be considered the "prevailing party" for purposes of determining their entitlement to reasonable attorney's fees under section 1988 if they can be deemed to have succeeded "`on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit [they] sought in bringing the suit.'" ... The district court rejected the fee request on the grounds that neither Mr. Moore nor the school corporation had violated the constitution and that Mr. Moore and the remaining defendants were entitled to immunity. This precluded, according to the district court, the imposition of liability for attorney's fees ... .
We agree with the district court but on a somewhat narrower basis. What the plaintiffs received was a declaration or a finding that they were in compliance with state law. This is not something the Mazanecs "sought" to achieve in bringing this lawsuit. The Mazanecs' amended complaint prays for injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief based on alleged violations of their constitutional rights and those of their children. They never prevailed in getting any declaration that their civil rights claims had merit. ...

**************

IMMEDIATO v. RYE NECK SCHOOL DISTRICT was a 1996 New York federal USCA court decision. The two named plaintiffs were Daniel Immediato, and his parents Eugene and Diane Immediato, and Mario Gironda Jr., and his parents Mario Sr. and Sandra Gironda. I have not delved deeply into this topic, or even this single case, because I have NOT been able to establish that either of the named plaintiffs were Jehovah's Witnesses. This case was one of several that arose during the 1990s over the question as to whether it was constitutional for high schools to require students to perform "community service" as a condition of graduation. This USCA decision upheld the USDC's decision that "community service" requirements were constitutional, and it is possible that SCOTUS denied cert.

There are repeated brief references, in articles discussing this issue, to the fact that an unnamed Jehovah's Witness Student at Rye Neck High School in Mamaroneck, New York, attempted to have approved as his/her required "community service project" their weekly JW door-to-door recruiting activities, which are also required of them as a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Rye Neck High School supposedly refused to approve the JW Student's purposed "project" on "establishment clause" grounds. One article even indicated that the again unnamed JW Student then refused to perform any other type project, so failed to meet the school's requirements for graduation, and thus the JW Student failed to receive their high school diploma.

Possibly, the JW Student was not either of these plaintiffs, and the JW Student scenario was only briefly mentioned in briefs and/or oral arguments in this case, or even possibly, one of the two plaintiffs was that JW student and his parents, and although the issue of the JW "door-knocking" project was not part of this case, because such was seen as a certain losing issue, possibly the JWs were sufficiently irritated to go forward on other issues that might have stood a better chance of getting the "community service" requirement declared "unconstitutional".

**************

ARKANSAS v. BRIGHT. In March 1991, Susan Bright, of Pulaski County, Arkansas, refused to allow her 7 year-old son, Jason Bright, to be immunized against polio, diphtheria, measles, whooping cough, and other childhood illnesses due to her religious beliefs. Although unconfirmed, there are multiple indications that the Brights were either Jehovah's Witnesses, or otherwise held WatchTower beliefs. Because of the refusal, Jason Bright was not permitted to enter the first grade. Eventually, truancy charges were presses against Susan Bright. However, a local judge instead issued a court order requiring the local school system to admit the child without benefit of immunizations.

**************

HOOSE v. CARTHAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT was a 1985-6 New York federal court case in which the Jehovah's Witness Parents of Benjamin Hoose sued their local school district for $2,000,000.00 damages, plus injunctive relief to force the entry of Benjamin into kindergarten despite the fact that Benjamin did not have all required immunizations. In fact, the school district had permitted Benjamin to attend school while the case was pending. The USDC denied the damages, but did rule in the Hoose's favor with regard to the required immunizations. The USDC ruled that since certain immunizations are derived from blood or blood parts, and that since Jehovah's Witnesses are not permitted to introduce blood, or certain parts thereof, into their bodies, then a school district cannot require such for admission to school. The USDC noted that while some JWs do not interpret WatchTower rules as strict as did the Hooses, such did not matter, so long as the Hooses were sincere in their beliefs.

**************

BOGGESS v. MATTHEWS NORTH CAROLINA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES was a 1991-? North Carolina civil court case. In May 1991, Ginger Boggess, 48, who had been a Jehovah's Witness for 20 years, met with Elders of her congregation with regard to her daughter's membership on the Student Council at her junior high school. The meeting allegedly lasted approximately 90 minutes, during which Boggess also alleged that the Elders held her against her will during an "inquisition-like" interrogation that caused her to suffer a mental breakdown. Her husband, who was not a JW, alleged that he found his wife slumped unconscious in a chair following the meeting. Thereafter, Ginger Boggess and John Boggess filed this civil lawsuit against eight members of her former JW congregation, accusing them of false imprisonment, assault and battery, and inflicting mental distress. Outcome unknown.

**************

IN RE CURTIS H. (Linked PDF) was a 1984 Georgia case which involved Jehovah's Witness Parents fighting with the Atlanta School Board about whether their first grader, who was home-schooled instead of being sent to pre-school and kindergarten, should be evaluated for "learning, social adjustment, and speech problems" sufficient to cause the child to be classified as "handicapped". Typically, the parents blamed the school system for being "prejudiced" against Jehovah's Witnesses. The other allegations were probably moot.

**************

MARYLAND v. TERRY MILLER and KATHLEEN MILLER was a 1982-84 criminal prosecution of Maryland's compulsory school attendance law after the Millers removed their two children from school rather than allow their two children to be vaccinated. Outcome unknown.

**************

OHIO v. KIMES and OHIO v. KIMES were two related 1952 and 1953 Ohio cases in which Woodrow Kimes, a Jehovah's Witness, refused to permit his son to receive immunizations required for public school attendance due to WatchTower teachings that certain immunizations contained blood parts. For the second refusal, Kimes was sentenced to 10 days in county jail.

**************

NEW HAMPSHIRE v. DREW was a 1935 criminal court "truancy" case, which involved a Dover, New Hampshire, Jehovah's Witness, named Lawrence E. Drew. Lawrence Drew refused to have his son, Othnell Drew, 8, properly vaccinated, due to their WatchTower beliefs, which was a state requirement for school attendance. Drew was found guilty at trial level and appealed. Outcome unknown.

**************

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"

This 11-year-old Jehovah's Witness Student aspires to grow up and earn her living as a part-time Janitor, so she can knock doors for the WatchTower Society.

**************

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>