BIG NEWS Reply: Cliff's Notes Version

by Oroborus21 26 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Oroborus21

  Thanks Dave,

  Yeah I take a unique approach with my one-man show. I thought it cool that AuldSoul called attention to my Oroborus explanation page. I wanted to call my company MicroSoft but that was taken darn it. I guess some people didn't know what that word meant when it was first used too. Anyway I get asked a lot about what the Oroborus is, how to pronounce it etc. so I made up that page to give an explanation.

  My webs skills are still developing and since law is my main focus that is something that is still in play. I have been the owner of a this one website for many years but is a secret (for a good reason) so I can't tell, but anyway the design is basic html for that one.

  I am all self-taught when it comes to the web stuff so it isn't much to brag about yet.

  I am still waiting to see a dime from the Ukrainian Dreamgirls affiliation. I don't control the content or the site, basically I am letting the tour company use my URL and supposedly i am to get a percentage of sales that comes from it but as I have said, I haven't gotten any royalty checks yet. We will see. It isn't something that I market or get out there so that is probably the reason.

  I met my wife (soon to be ex-wife) over the Net so I have an interest in those kinds of relationships and how they work out or don't.

  I wish my brother's project would get going more. His invention is really revolutionary and when I have the chance I am going to help push him more but I got my own problems and responsibilities to deal with first.

  anyway thanks for visiting. Lately I have been doing a lot of immigration work but I am about to pick up a premises liability case which will be interesting.

  I never proclaimed to be an expert in religious law, though being a JW I have always had an interest. AuldSoul, I think is confused though cause he keeps implying that Kerry is from Baylor when actually I believe that she is a graduate of Florida State, and anyway that is where she got admitted, less than three months ago, I think it is only that Baylor is the publisher of the JSC and that is why he is confused. Anyway, being a lawyer for lessthan thee months is hardly, what I would call, enough time to become specialized and anyway, in California and probably in Florida, that is not actually a recognized "specialization" so it is inaccurate to say that one is such a specialist. At most one could say that is the area of her expertise, or focus or law practice. I noticed that Kerry's bar listing doesn't have a firm's address which probably just means that she is either a solo like me right now or more-likely job hunting. I hope she lands a good one. She seems bright and is beautiful so I think she will do well. She is wrong on this issue though but I will get into that in my post tonight.

  later, Eduardo
• 

  seven006

  My last post kind ‘a zipped right over your head didn’t it?
  
  Sorry, I didn’t mean to post it as an invitation for you to post your bio.
  
  I have just one suggestion. Giver up on the web design or any aspect of creative expertise in any way in your overly diversified empire. It isn’t helping your credibility.
  
  I changed the spark plugs in my car once but I will never offer to help people rebuild their engine based on that.
  
  Dave
• 

  AuldSoul

  And the timing of indoctrination regarding the blood issue cannot be ignored. No one is told they may have to sacrifice their life for this organization's scriptural interpretation the first time someone comes to visit.

  They are weaned off their regular friendships and distanced from any non-JW family LONG before this doctrine rears its head. Now they have a community attachment to the JWs and there is more than an implication of a threat to cut off that community attachment for non-compliance. There is a directive that if they unrepentantly fail to uphold this teaching to the death they will be cut off. They are threatened with alienation for non-compliance.

  They have already cut off the friends they had (major life change) and now have to contemplate whether they can emotionally stand to go through (1) cutting off, or being cut off from, a new set of friends, (2) eating a lot of crow to regain former friends due to remarks made to explain distancing, (3) feelings of unworthiness due to a perceived cutting off from the undeserved kindness grace of God, and (4) feeling unsure whether they made the right choice due to a typically poorer education and ability to research.

  If anyone thinks there is no coercion at work, read through that list again and see if that CERTAIN negative consequence could possibly cause someone to minimize the POSSIBLE consequence of compliance. But, if compliance is gained in part through misrepresentation of material facts, i.e. through an exercise of religion that is at odds with compelling state interest (as opposed to a religious belief), then the religion responsible is guilty of a tort of misrepresentation, and possibly guilty of more than just that.

  If a jury agrees, it is all over for the WTS. If a jury disagrees but the media exposes the case thoroughly, no more new recruits for the WTS. This news is HUGE. When it is tried, we're going be famous.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  rebel8

  And of course if there is no harm that results, then they won't be able to sue for anything.

  This is the very important piece of info that most people seem to not realize. There is talk on this forum of "massive class action lawsuits" and that seems a bit nieve to me.

  You cannot sue someone for misrepresentation if you were not harmed by it. (This is based on my discussion about this issue with 2 attorneys. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

  I personally was in grave danger of dying multiple times because of the misrepresentation, but since there is no (provable) lasting damage, I probably couldn't join the "massive class" if there ever was one.
• 

  AuldSoul

  rebel8,

  While that is true, "any legal claims" are part of the estate left when someone dies.

  Enough legally recognized claimants each year are harmed by this misrepresentation that a class action suit is possible. And there does not have to be "lasting harm" to be "harm." There is no statutory requirement on the extent of harm from misrepresentation, just that harm must be a provable consequence partially attributable to reckless disregard in the misrepresentation of secular facts.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  skeeter1

  Some have argued that because the journal paper does not prove the Society's mindset (i.e. bad intent) regarding the misquotes, that there is no tort of misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is an "intentional'" tort, and can also be a "negligence" type of a tort (i.e. constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation). Yes, the defense of being "ignorant, stupid, etc." is a complete defense to one of the types of tort of misrepresentation, but the defense of "no intent" does not help in constructive fraud or negligent misrepresentation.

  But since the inability of a lawyer to prove the Society's bad intent is your hang-up, I'll give you something to consider.
  
  The blood booklet was originally published in the early 1990's. Do you think their printers stopped printing it in 1990, or 1995 or 2000 or 2005? I got my last copy in 2004, and it looked pretty new to me.
  
  Now, let's just take the Priestley misquote. All the ex-JWs probably know (or should know by now) that that is not what Mr. Priestley concluded. In fact, some of us (I have) wrote the Society. Yet, it's never been retracted. The Society just doesn't "use" it anymore in their current literature. But, the Dec 2005 KM directs parents to use the blood booklet to train their children. The Society just re-ratified the blood booklet....including this bad Priestley quote!

  Intent can be proven directly or indirectly. Directly is where a governing body member/writer/editor/elder admits the Society deliberately lied. Indirect evidence (aka circumstantial) evidence comes through a persons "pattern or practice" (a term I borrow from employment discrimination where you will never get a person to say on the stand.. "I hate [race] people."). "Pattern or practice" is just that, the person's pattern or practice. A few misquotes here and there is forgivable, human error. It's the pattern & practice of the misrepresentations that is damning for the Society. Ex-JW's have known FOR YEARS about the Priestley misquote, and have even wrote the Society about it. Did the Society officially "retract" their mistake? No. I have never seen any "retractions" of any errors to their followers. I "bet" the Society knew for a long time that it had problems in the blood booklet. I wonder whether Bethel ever received any inquiries from the secular writers themselves? I do not know, I never worked there. In any event, the Society "knows" it has problems in this blood booklet based on all of our inquiries. Yet, they continue to ratify it.
  
  Here's an example. A car dealer sells you a nice Ford Mustang. It's a lemon, and you return it for your money back. He "thinks" there is nothing wrong with the vehicle, and he sells it to your neighbor by saying, "I just said the other day what a great car this was." She returns it to him, complaining it doesn't work. He sells it to your Aunt as he "thinks" both you and your neighbor are mistaken and says, "Why, I just said yesterday what a great car this was." Your Aunt returns it, and says it doesn't work...this "car" is repeatedly sold......day after day, publication after publication, misquote after misquote. You go to court. The judge is considering whether to put the case to trial (i.e. in front of the jury). Judge reads that salesman claims that he "thought" the car was great (secular/medical information was not a misrepresentation/Society beleived it was an accurate quote....) How would a good Plaintiff's attorney respond? "Pretext....he sold that car repeatedly after knowing there were errors (continued printing the booklet with the errors, offering it to the public, referred to it in current literature as good, no retractions, ever made) many times over the years despite being "on notice" that the car was a lemon (secular material contained in it was misleading). Judge, this needs to go to the jury. Get to the jury, get to the MONEY.
  
  Law changes over time. Look at the changes that happened during the 20th century: equality, voting rights, tort law, tobacco litigation, labor protection, abortion (for the worse perhaps), women's rights, ability to sue one's parents, one's religion, one government, etc. Eduardo, the problem with getting "old" is that you get used to the status quo. Yes, every moral wrong is not a legal claim. But, when society/government as a whole thinks the moral wrong needs to become a legal wrong, the law changes. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but finely. The one thing about our world is that change is constant, and that the rate of change is increasing since the Internet. If this journal article were published 15 years ago, there is no way that this many JWs and ex-JWs would know about it. Accurate knowledge feeds change.
• 

  AuldSoul

  A lot of people seem to be confusing the standards of evidence in criminal proceedings with the standards required for a civil tort of this nature.

  There is a standard of proof that goes along with various types of claims. I am going to attempt a brief rundown of the U.S. possiblities. Eduardo, please correct me if I get it wrong. From lowest standard to highest:

  Balance of Probabilities, also called Preponderance of the Evidence, only requires that it be more likely than not that the defendant is guilty. It is a very low standard to meet and is the standard most often employed for civil cases (caution: civil cases of increased gravity or implication may have a higher standard of proof imposed). This is the standard parents routinely employ in parenting.

  Clear and Convincing Evidence requires evidence sufficient to sway the trier that there is substantial probability that the defendant is guilty of the claimed torts. Sometimes this standard is imposed in civil proceedings. It is still couched in very subjective terms that could later be interpretted by the trier more or less heavily toward either of the other two standards. In practice, this standard often provides needed discretionary latitude to "make it right" so to speak.

  Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires a standard of proof that leaves the trier all but certain of guilt. This is a very weighty standard of proof, reserved for most criminal cases. It is the most well known and is often readily leapt to by informal groups, but it often does not apply to the discussion.

  To show where this misunderstanding rgarding standards of proof can lead to incorrect assumptions, I have read where several different posters have compared this matter to murder trials to demonstrate that the expected outcomes were not realized. If "beyond a reasonable doubt" were imposed in civil matters, that would be some MAJOR tort reform!

  Typically, balance of probabilities will suffice for civil suit. Since the requested relief is likely to be substantial if someone pursues this theory, the standard would probably be heavier. I can't imagine a circumstance related to this issue in a civil court context that would require imposition of "beyond a reasonable doubt," but perhaps I am overlooking something.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul