REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE (page 8)

skeeter1

The beauty of a chat room is that they allow ANYONE in...including Watchtower attorneys. Isn't that right, boys? I must say, you are working very hard to diss this article.

I agree, the Journal of Church & State an indistinguished source, just like the National Inquirer. Isn't that why lovely Ms. Wah publishes in it four times? I digress, the journal is full of dumb people!
Take a look at these nobodies who are on the advisory board

From the Journal's website.

The work of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies is assisted by a panel of highly distinguished scholars, jurists, and educators with demonstrated expertise in the field of church-state relations. These advisors are valuable assets to the Institute and make meaningful contributions through their counsel, suggestions, ideas, and scholarly writings. The members are:

IP_SEC

Watchtower is an expert at advancing the "Scripture tells us so"

Steve,

This is where they have cut their arm off. In recent decades all of their liturature has shifted to a mostly secular point of view. Look at it, in the brochures, mags and videos, its 5 minutes of "Scripture tells us so" and the rest is the medical aspect. No?

skeeter1

THe above post from Molko....for some reason the entire facts did not post through. There is something wrong with the cut & paste on this server or on my computer. But, the above should give you plenty to read....

steve2

This is where they have cut their arm off. In recent decades all of their liturature has shifted to a mostly secular point of view. Look at it, in the brochures, mags and videos, its 5 minutes of "Scripture tells us so" and the rest is the medical aspect. No?

IT-Sec: Regardless of how you apportion the time intervals spent on instruction (e.g., "5 minutes of "Scripture tells us so" and the rest is the medical aspect), Scripture is the crucial justification for all that follows.

However, having said that, I have a robust regard for actually seeing this played out in the judicial system itself, Amercian or otherwise.

Bring it on, litigants! I will happily "eat" my words, if its successful!

AuldSoul

I would love to hear Steve2 or Eduardo comment on whether the intent of the indoctrination is weightier than the result to the indoctrinated.

In other words, if you try to convince me God feels a certain way and you fail but you succeed in convincing me of medical reasons to comply, or I comply because of other non-religious reasons, are you absolved of accountability for the means by which I was convinced simply because you ALSO tried to convince me on religious grounds?

Also, neither of you has commented on the possibility of an unbelieving mate being convinced by the misrepresented medical evidence provided.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

seesthesky

Auldsoul wrote:

"I would love to hear Steve2 or Eduardo comment on whether the intent of the indoctrination is weightier than the result to the indoctrinated.

ME: I ain't eduardo or steve 2 so sorry if i disappoint - anyway - it seems the answer to your question depends on the jurisdiction under which any complaint would be brought and what legal theory the facts in the complaint could support - e.g., does the legal theory require proof of intent, recklessness, or negligence - my 2 cents

steve2

I would love to hear Steve2 or Eduardo comment on whether the intent of the indoctrination is weightier than the result to the indoctrinated.

AuldSoul, I'm happy with the response seesthesky gave to your query. I would just add that, I'm not saying the "Big Announcement" won't end up being big. I just honestly can't yet see how it could be.

I'm very open to seeing what will eventuate. Barbara's irritating and very Watchtower-like suspense hype just got in my way. I've considered the journal article as well as responses to that article and am simply saying:

Come on people, if you're so convinced this will be the legal avenue that will cripple the watchtower, get moving on it. Stop the endless speculating. Do something! I'm still perplexed about why the people who knew about the claimed significance of the article ahead of time haven't done something.

doogie

skeeter1:

The Moonies’ lies about their identity actually happened ON THE 12 TH DAY (Mr. Molko) and on the 23rd Day (Ms. Leal - another Plaintiff) of the intensive indoctrination.

in the info you posted i see misrepresentations on day 1 for each plaintiff. in Molko's info it says of the initial contact:

Molko asked the two their occupations and was told they did social work and worked with environmental programs. He asked if Bush and Patton had a "religious connection." They said "no."

in the section describing Leal's case, the Moonies probably left themselves more wiggle room but there is still misrepresentation on the initial contact:

They said they were part of the "Creative Community Project," described as a group of socially concerned professional people involved in good works such as giving food to the poor. [...] Leal asked if Zielinski and Parker were part of a religious group, and said she did not want to get involved with them if they were. They replied only [*1106] that the people in their group "all came from different religious backgrounds." Leal accepted their invitation.

i'm not trying to dismiss the entire article and i hope that someone is successful in court with this info. i'm just agreeing with others who have said that the similarities between the Moonies and the JWs with respect to this case are limited.

Oroborus21

AuldSoul,

Setting all of the other problems aside for sake of discussion, an unbelieving mate would probably not have standing to sue on a misrepresentation claim since they would have difficulty establishing the fiduciary relationship that is a prerequisite.

A person can hardly justifiably rely upon statements made by a stranger. And since there is no duty upon the one making the statement to be truthful (as is imposed by the law in commercial and other situations) the one making the statement may lie.

Much of the argument in support of the theory of suing the WT has been that Witnesses trust the Society, with the implication that despite all of the intervening access to information including from one's own doctor that a Witness will fail to listen to the counsel to accept blood because of their faith.

In the case of unbelieving mate no reasonable person could justify why they were "fooled" by statements made by a party which they have no relationship with and which they have by their own choices refused to believe. Everyone would consider it that it was their own fault for believing in medical statements made by some church in which they are not a member - and indeed it would be.

-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

Peer review doesn't end when something is published, that's when it really begins.

AuldSoul

In the case of unbelieving mate no reasonable person could justify why they were "fooled" by statements made by a party which they have no relationship with and which they have by their own choices refused to believe. Everyone would consider it that it was their own fault for believing in medical statements made by some church in which they are not a member - and indeed it would be.

Eduardo,

I can see how this would be a huge obstacle. Thanks for bringing that out.

Is it a person's own fault for believing intentionally misleading legal advice from someone who is not an attorney? I was under the impression that was not the case, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Is it a person's own fault for believing intentionally misleading medical opinion from someone who is not a medical professional? Somehow, I have a difficult time seeing how that would matter. But, perhaps you are correct.

I believe that the fiduciary relationship regarding the medical information (separately and distinctly from the religious opinion) is created when they published (made public) a medical opinion. But, I have been wrong before. If that is held to be true it would be far EASIER to win a case where the religious issues didn't even come into play.

In other words, I believe it is extremely simple to demonstrate a fiduciary responsibility to communicate correct medical information since they positioned their brochure as an authority on the medical issue they spoke to. Anyone who claims they can provide basis for medical opinion (that they admit dissents with the opinion of the medical community) to an effective enough degree that it can be basis for an informed choice has a legal responsibility to make sure they do that.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

Share this