Greetings:
AuldSoul: I just wanted to let you know that the reason I use the Esq. from time to time is because I was advised to by another well-known lawyer since I am a solo-attorney. It lets people know that should they have a legal question or issue they may approach me. If they are in California then I can advise them and if not I can give them information and tell them to see someone locally. Use of the Esq. is not in any way unethical. And certainly it is not practicing outside of the jurisdiction anymore than a doctor who uses Mr. Smith, M.D. is practicing medicine outside of the state where she is licensed by simply discussing general principles of medicine or standards of care, etc.
Likewise, I don't use the "disclaimer" all of the time nor is it necessary. Some lawyers do for safety's sake. In posts where it seems to me obvious that I am not giving legal advice I do not provide it. With Marvin's question, I was unsure if he might have been asking his question because he has a situation himself and was asking for legal advise so I deemed it prudent to use a disclaimer in my answer to his question.
All of my posts that touch upon legal issues such as the one at hand are based on my opinion in discussion of general legal principles or as in the case at hand, my interpretation of California law and its applicabilty or rather inapplicability elsewhere. As such this does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship or a reasonable expectation that my advice could be relied upon for legal action in a person's specific situation with anyone.
If you think participating in a forum is enough to get a lawyer disbarred in California you really don't understand what is required.
Cognitive-D: This is just your bad timing that you have to read so much of my hot-air (actually no one is making you read it all!) You may note that even though I have been a forum participant for years, my number of actual posts is quite modest. I would not consider myself a major player in this forum and I rarely post anything other than a quip here and there or a quick two-cents worth of opinion. This topic just happened to be blown up to be so important and then it turned out to be something related to my field, that I had more to say than usual.
I really don't have more to say than the opinion I have already expressed and the analysis that I have already performed, so if anyone has specific questoins that they don't think others will care about it would be better to pm me as I am sure the forum is tired of not only hearing me but also fatigued with this topic and irked that my darn post keeps popping to the top.
Ballistic: Thanks! I will try that in the future.
Marvin: First very interesting points on page three of the thread. With regard to your questions perhaps we should exchange email since I am not sure that the forum is interested and also I need to know if you are asking about these things theoretically or for some other reason. PM me.
TD: It is a fascinating consideration, that is the separating of the secularity from the belief. Whether it can be done bears discussing. I wished there would have more of this in the essay itself. I don't think it can be done with respect to the Society's literature, but I could be wrong. showing just how it could be done is what someone needs to do. Just saying that it is secular doesn't do it and probably wouldn't convince in a courtroom. And I am not convinced that even if such statements were deemed as secular that it would win the case for all of the reasons that I go into already.
Enigma: Just a point of order, it is likely that if filed in state court the Society would at least try to have it removed to federal court on the basis of the constitutional issues raised. In so doing they may believe that federal law will work better for them and doing such also makes it more expensive for the plaintiff.
Finally, with regard to this latest bit of discussion on the thread, would someone create a new thread taking a poll of whether the medical information was : highly influential, modestly influential, not influential in 1) either actually or prospectively choosing to refuse blood - in its prohibited forms and 2) choosing to become a witness
And also ask a second question along the lines of who was really fooled by the Society's medical statements re:Blood. I for one was never fooled and always realized that the rest of the world were not idiots. Blood transfusions and so on may have some risks and concerns but they work and are useful, I think even Jehovah's Witnesses understand that, at least most Witness I know do. Maybe there are some really naive persons out there and plenty of stupid ones that disregard the facts but I haven't encountered many. All Witnesses that I know who say that they would not accept a blood transfusion do so as a matter of their faith not as a matter of medicine.
-Eduardo Leaton Jr, Esq.
