REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE (page 10)

AuldSoul

Agreed. And I have spoken to a concerned party on another matter in your behalf.

Respect (if grudgingly ),
AuldSoul

auld soul said: "Agreed. And I have spoken to a concerned party on another matter in your behalf."

ME: I hope i m mistaken but - based on my careful study of this thread and threads related to it - this sounds weird to me - like a threat of sorts re mr. esq.'s law license - i sure hope this aint the case - if so, then i got no repect for ya AS - if i'm wrong then please accept my apologies for thinking the worst

AuldSoul

seesthesky: I accept your apology. No harm done.

I took up for Eduardo's right to an opinion and creativity (however offensive some may find it). I won't say more because hopefully the entire matter is settled anyway.

If what you thought was the case happened, I would also have no respect for me.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

Madame Quixote

I hope that you will all find this site as useful as I have. It deals with legal explanations on tort law, misrepresentation, and precedents, without a lot of bickering: http://www.lexisone.com/legalresearch/legalguide/practice_areas/personal_injury_tort_law.htm As a paralegal student, I found this site useful from time to time. Glad you guys had it out on this board; it was actually kinda fun (although sometimes tedious, which the law and discussions about it can often be). I think I have to go with Auld Soul, in that this particular situation (tort of misrepresentation by the JW organization) merits very careful legal scrutiny; it could create a precedent if the JWs are "taken to task" for misrepresenting secular facts and for using such "facts" to influence people "UNDER DURESS," such as when elders from a congregation show up as the HLC (Hospital Liaison Committee), when a JW congregant is faced with the possibility of death (for not having a blood transfusion which the Society pressures them to choose) or disfellowishipping (for choosing to have a blood transfusion which educated medical professionals may request). I believe that it could be established that such duress, coupled with misrepresentation of secular facts, did indeed cause injury or death, and that there may be a very actionable case or two out there. Not only do the individual elders who participate in HLCs need to be very nervous about the possibility of a lot of major litigation, but so does the bOrg; and I suspect they should be nervous both with regard to civil and criminal litigation. Regardless of whether it turns out to be win, lose, or draw, I think they have a tough row to hoe. It won't be easy to set new legal precedents in this regard, but it probably should be done.

Ned

I vote with Madame. I don't know much about the law, but I do know a wrong when I see a wrong.

The Society misrepresented medical facts. Today, the Society would defend that it's all eligious motivated or that the JW was wrong for relying on the Society's words. But, those are poor excuses for the lies in the literature on medical facts. Plus, wouldn't a court apply a "reasonable" standard at determining whether the JW was correct in relying on the Society's literature? As so much is presented from with a medical view, even showing men in coats on the videos, I can see where a reasonable person would consider the Society's words about its medical content to be reliable.

As far as attorney's fees, don't many attorneys take personal injury cases on a contingent fee? That means that the person wanting to sue would not foot the bill until won. Also, aren't there some attornies who work for charity (pro bono)? Would they take the case? So, do not feel discouraged that there are no attorneys who would be interested. Ones like Kimberlee Norris and Vaughn Marshall, who I vote as today's heros.

Ned

DaCheech

-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
(of the fatigued by ignorance class)

I see how you see US!

DaCheech

Does telling your followers --> To test their children by repetitious study (to watch and study many times the blood DVD) qualify as getting ready to make false statements in court?

DaCheech of the so called ignorant class

stillconcerned

whohoooo

I'm a hero!

kd norris

Marvin Shilmer

Eduardo writes:

“Medically related statements regarding Blood made by Witnesses is part of the indoctrination, the teaching of the doctrine regarding blood, from the outset. It is inseparably religious.”

This is a nice opinion, Eduardo. But that’s all it is; your opinion.

An Achilles heal for the WTS may well be the fact that the WTS itself has time and time again iterated to its adherents and the public that what it publishes on the medical aspects of blood is not only distinguishable from its theological doctrine but that it is aside from its theological doctrine regarding blood.* This is why the WTS refers to its theological doctrine as a religious position and the dangers of blood transfusion therapy as medical information.

Eduardo, do you believe the WTS is immune from legal culpability were it to misrepresent an author? Or, do you believe that author has cause of action based on misrepresentation? Do you believe freedom of religion is a license to misrepresent the work of other individuals or organizations?

Marvin Shilmer

References:

* km 12/03 p. 2 Service Meeting Schedule:
“… emphasize that the principal reason why Christians refuse blood transfusions is to honor God’s law on the sanctity of blood.

* w91 6/15 p. 18 Walk as Instructed by Jehovah:
“… the possible medical hazards of blood give added weight to our religious position.”

Check_Your_Premises

Man. Reading this thread makes me glad my attorney father talked me out of going to law school.

CYP

REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

Share this