Patterson on the line: Watchtower claims that paying cash bond would cause immediate irreparable harm and hardship (page 32)

Scott77

As I have alluded to in this thread, I have decided that I will avoid responding to posts about legal matters made by non-lawyers. I find that my efforts to clarify the law on this forum have offended some folks here and caused them to respond with personal attacks, etc.. There just isn't any up side for me in responding to this type of topic, and it appears that many here would prefer to believe/rely on false information.

Mr 144001 posted 26 mins ago (10/23/2012) at http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/240181/16/Patterson-on-the-line-Watchtower-claims-that-paying-cash-bond-would-cause-e2809cimmediate-irreparable-harm-and-hardshipe2809d

	Cedars, The article remains inaccurate from a legal point of view....your lack of legal background/knowledge renders your articles on the Conti case terribly lacking in accuracy. I do not have the time, the inclination, or the invitation to be your proof reader.
	Mr 144001 posted ~ 21 hours ago (10/23/2012) at http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/240181/10/Patterson-on-the-line-Watchtower-claims-that-paying-cash-bond-would-cause-e2809cimmediate-irreparable-harm-and-hardshipe2809d

<<<< For a lawyer of his status, I really find John's wholesale attack on Cedar' headline as very troubling>>>>

As for your reference to me as a "lawyer," I've never posted anything concerning what it is that I do for a living. If you want to speculate that I'm a lawyer, then feel free to do so, but I will never respond to any questions concerning my occupation in life.

Mr 144001 posted 22 days ago (10/1/2012) at http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/236822/7/Conti-update-article-Watchtower-Loses-Conti-Appeal-But-Fights-On

Mr. John, before you attack threads posted by 'non lawyers on a non legal forum, how come you comment on issues you are not qualified to do so when yourself is not a lawyer or an attorney? Please,when are you going to 'avoid responding to posts about legal matters made by non-lawyers' on a non legal forum?.

Scott77

cedars

By the way, I would also like to apologise to this forum for the language I used on this thread. Answering the comments today has been a draining experience and I personally feel that I was provoked into reacting angrily, but this doesn't excuse my choice of words and I shouldn't have lost my temper so easily. I apologize to slimboyfat, soft+gentle, Simon, and the entire forum for any offense caused by insulting or otherwise inappropriate language I have used on this thread. It won't be happening again.

Cedars

144001

Cedars,

Now you're calling me a liar? Pot/kettle.

Every article you've posted here regarding legal matters has included false information. I have brought this to your attention in the past, but rather than simply correct it, you've debated the inaccuracy and actually tried to defend it until others expressed opinions consistent with those I posted.

Your article continues to contain false information, beginning with the first paragraph. But since accuracy is not your objective, there's no point in fixing it.

I will most certainly "remember" that accuracy is not your priority in writing articles about legal matters, and will therefore avoid reading future threads/posts from you concerning Conti or any other legal matters.

cedars

144001

Every article you've posted here regarding legal matters has included false information.

More sweeping statements not backed up by facts. And I notice you are reticent to confirm your own qualifications to comment with such authority on legal matters.

As I've mentioned above, whenever you have pointed out a genuine mistake I have rectified it accordingly. In subjective matters I reserve the right to have the final say if I don't agree with your analysis. That's my prerogative as the writer.

Surely if this thread has taught us anything, it's that angry sweeping generalizations that aren't backed up by firm quotes or facts get us nowhere.

I invest much time and research in my articles, and it's all too easy for you to come along and say they're inaccurate without specifying how.

It's a shame you have to be so angry. If you were really bothered by accuracy I'm sure you'd be emailing me with suggestions on how to improve the articles. Instead you seem hellbent on tearing me down publicly with sweeping generalizations.

Cedars

Most Noble

I just dont understand the reason why folks here are just unnecessarily interested in being controversial.

Why must we keep fighting on every little thing

I put up my personal experience here and all i got from it was an attack from those who knew nothing about me.

Please fellow apostates, lets be careful on how we use tongue and our speech, so that we dont pull each other down, but build up constructively.

Most Noble

cedars

It is sometimes unfortunate that when people run away from the JW world, they are often embraced by some frustrated lunatics hellbent on tarnishing one's image and reputation-.

Theocratic Sedition

144,001, you might want to just let this one go if the direction this thread took today is any indication. A live dog is better than a dead lion if you catch my drift.

mind blown

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/236822/7/Conti-update-article-Watchtower-Loses-Conti-Appeal-But-Fights-On

144001 With all due respect, Scott, you know nothing about me, except for the fact that unlike you, I don't advocate the publication of false statements in furtherance of your "win at all costs" philosophy. There was absolutely nothing true about the headline I responded to, and while you claim it had "substance," you've failed to provide anything to support your contention that lies have "substance." What you advocate is no different from what the WTBTS practices. You can take a person out of the kingdom hall, but in some cases, you can't take the kingdom hall out of the person. Your shameless advocacy of the publication of false statements illustrates that point.

As for your reference to me as a "lawyer," I've never posted anything concerning what it is that I do for a living. If you want to speculate that I'm a lawyer, then feel free to do so, but I will never respond to any questions concerning my occupation in life. I bet that when we move on to medical subjects, there will be folks here referring to me as a doctor. Having knowlege of a subject does not make one a practitioner/professional in the subject matter.

However, I'm quite confident in the accuracy of everything I've posted here, and I challenge anyone, lawyer or not, to disprove anything I've posted in this thread.

Scott, shame on you for advocating the publication of lies. Ex-JWs are not benefitted by false statements or your advocacy of dishonest behavior.

This statment is an odd statement " Having knowlege of a subject does not make one a practitioner/professional in the subject . So you can get down on others without proper backgrounds, but you in turn make "authoritative" statements without credentials? Also, Cedars stated he had info re this subject, he didn't say he's an authoritarian on the matter...... I highly doubt Cedar's purposly uses "false statements or your advocacy of dishonest behavior" as you say. Without question, if you would have brought it to his attention in a kindly manner....I'm sure he would have responded in a positive manner and you both could have remedied the situation for all our benefit on JWN instead of being in attack mode from the start......

moshe

I will most certainly "remember" that accuracy is not your priority in writing articles about legal matters,

Cedars, I am off track, but bear with me-- I love Lawyers-

Many years ago I had a friend who was remodeling a courthouse- he was up above a suspended ceiling in a side room doing some re-wiring and he heard the door open-

he was as quiet as mouse-

lawyer1- Bob, I really need to win this case, ($$$) so if you could see your way to help me out on this one (lay down on the cross examine, please)

the next time you need help, I will return the favor.

Lawyer2- OK , Jack, I'll see what I can do.

I always wondered after that, how many lawyers were "helping each other out".

Most Noble

Simon - WHy delete king solomon?, is not fair

Patterson on the line: Watchtower claims that paying cash bond would cause immediate irreparable harm and hardship

Share this

Patterson on the line: Watchtower claims that paying cash bond would cause immediate irreparable harm and hardship