Posts by skeeter1

71

GET REAL PEOPLE !!

by Simon in

do some of you expect?!?!.

i am extremely disappointed to read some people's comments about the latest news.

it is one thing to express and opinion, perhaps that you think it isn't as big as you imagined (one wonders what you imagined) but it is another to be downright insulting to people who have put a lot of time and effort into this.. get real.

skeeter1

If a child's life is in danger, courts routinely order blood transfusions for the child. It's only in a few states, (Illinois, Tennessee, and West Virginia) where an advanced minor (like a 17 year old who can articulate) is allowed to make the decision for her/himself.

1093

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo in

if i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?

have i ever misled you?

i'll answer that--no!

skeeter1

Seethesky. Science is also theory too. Mr. Davis is more of an expert on religious theory and its trends than either you, I, or Mr. Esq. He saw the trend that Ms. L-W's article could take. So did the other two peer reviewers who had to give their "thumbs up."

103

REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

by Oroborus21 in

note: the catholic molestation cases have mostly been evaluated under employment law theories not the tort of misrepresentation or under non-fraud related tort claims]; fails to address important legal considerations such as standing and statute of limitations; and finally and most importantly, the essay fails to address in any meaningful way the inevitable constitutional arguments that would be raised by opposing (watchtower) counsel.

supreme court justices do not have the time to browse through law journals and the implication that they would be interested in an essay is even more deceptive.

the society does not cite a 1960 study as evidence that blood transfusions are hazardous.. here is the actual quotation in context:.

skeeter1

Molko could be applied elsewhere. There are parallels as I explained earlier and below.

Molko is a California Supreme Court Case. That means that it is precedent in California. Other states may, but are not required, to use its reasoning. Legal trends, like other trends, tend to start in California.

Federal courts did not take Molko for cert. That means that the federal court either agreed that Mr. Molko SHOULD win against the Moonies, or that they did not have enough time to fit it into their schedules. Either way, THE HARMED FOLLOWER WON.
CONTEXT is everything.
The Moonie church tried to argue that their identity deception was religiously intertwined. If they told the recruit in the beginning, 'Yeah, we're the Moonies" the would not have as many followers. So, they gave the recruit a little vacation to a nice farm for a week or so, and then told the recruit, if he still stayed. Then, the recruit could continue on for a few/several months & get baptized as a Moonie. The court saw through this. If the Moonie's told the recruit in the beginning, "We're the Moonies, please come to dinner with us" most recruits would run away fast. The Moonies were purposely waiting to reveal their identity until after Mr. Molko had swallowed the bait.

With the JWs, the blood doctrine is not presented in the beginning stages of a book study. Why not tell recruits on their first or second week about the blood doctrine? The Society is afraid the recruit would run away fast. No, the book study conductor waits until the recruit "appreciates the Truth." In this blood booklet, the pages and pages and pages historical and medical information is placed well towards the beginning...right after a short blurb about religious beliefs. The historical information basically says that early Christians did not eat blood and the medical information basically says that not taking blood will save your physical life. Why is this information placed in the very beginning....right after only a page or two of biblical reasoning? It's because the Society wants people to more easily accept that they will not die if they follow this belief, but will be even stronger in health. It's in the beginning so people do not run away fast.

Mr. Esq (or anyone who has this article). Please list out which quotes Ms. L-W claim to debunk.

1093

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo in

if i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?

have i ever misled you?

i'll answer that--no!

skeeter1

Seethesky.....YOU are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

I talked with the Journal of Church & State's editor last week.

The Journal of Church & State is NOT a student run journal. A student run journal is one where the editor and staff are law students who do the work. A student run's editorial staff changes every semester as students graduate. Student run journals do not have a peer review before publication.

The Journal of Church & State is run by law professors. Derek Davis (pictured in my above comment) is the editor-in-chief. He's NO student folks. The other editors are full time employees, not students.

When a paper initially arrives, Mr. Davis reads it. IF he likes it, he sends it to two other professors who are experts in the field. These two "peer reviewers" may or may not be in Texas. These other professors read the paper, make comments and suggestions, and forward the paper back to Mr. Davis...each giving his opinion on whether it should be published and give suggestions, discuss weaknesses, etc. Mr. Davis then gives the paper back to the author for revision, if accepted. The paper then goes back to Mr. Davis who determines if the new paper meets his liking. Then, the editorial staff go to town on the footnoting, editing, whatever else they do.

All of the Journal of Church & State's articles are peer-reviewed.

lol!

3

BIG NEWS POLL - how/when Did you read How Can Blood Save Your Life?

by skeeter1 in

please describe under what circumstance did you first read "how can blood save your life?

" (i am really meaning only the most current blood booklet..the one that was published in 1990).

it's the one that goes through all the medical facts of illness and alternative medicine near the beginning and includes discussion of aids, etc.

skeeter1

Please describe under what circumstance did you first read "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" (I am really meaning only the most current blood booklet..the one that was published in 1990). It's the one that goes through all the medical facts of illness and alternative medicine near the beginning and includes discussion of AIDS, etc. Was it part of being recruited, part of a book-study?

Did you use the booklet in your service calls?

Did you use this booklet with your children, grandchldren, etc?

103

REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

by Oroborus21 in

note: the catholic molestation cases have mostly been evaluated under employment law theories not the tort of misrepresentation or under non-fraud related tort claims]; fails to address important legal considerations such as standing and statute of limitations; and finally and most importantly, the essay fails to address in any meaningful way the inevitable constitutional arguments that would be raised by opposing (watchtower) counsel.

supreme court justices do not have the time to browse through law journals and the implication that they would be interested in an essay is even more deceptive.

the society does not cite a 1960 study as evidence that blood transfusions are hazardous.. here is the actual quotation in context:.

skeeter1

Mr. Eduardo has misrepresented the Molko case as he did not give enough detail, rather he minimized it.
I've not read Molko in a few days...but here is Molko's story as I remember them and how they might apply to the Society.

A fresh out of law school lawyer is standing on a street corner in California. Young lawyer is approached by an undercover Moonie(s), who invite young lawyer to a political dinner. Young lawyer attends. Dinner discussion centers around environment/politics/etc. Young lawyer's happy. The political group invites him to visit their farm. Young lawyer visits the farm for a day or so, and is always allowed to leave. Young lawyer starts to wonder about this group, and repeatedly asks, "Are you the Moonies?" They repeatedly deny it. After a few more days, one of the Moonie gals admits to young lawyer they are the Moonies. Even though they lied, young lawyer becomes a Moonie anyway. The Moonies tell young lawyer that anyone who opposes the Moonies (like his parents) are the agents of Satan. So, his parents can't persuade him away. Young lawyer "studies" with the Moonies for a few months, and is baptized and stays in for a while longer (few months). Young lawyer/Moonie gets out & decides to sue Moonies.

At this point, this young lawyer had little established law to back up his case or to take on a strong organization with money, such as the Unification Church (nice name to cover up the Moonies, I thought). What would you have told this young lawyer, Mr. Eduardo Esq? "It's impossible you wet, behind the ears, twit?" I'm glad Mr. Eduardo Esq was not around, because Young Lawyer sued and WON! By the way, have you, Mr. Eduardo Esq, ever heard of charities that help with some of these anti-cult lawsuits....? I digress, back to the Moonie story.

Moonies defend that their lies about their identity were religiously motivated. Court says, bullshxx! Court said basically churches can't lie to people about really important secular facts (in this case, the identity) when recruits are entering a coercive environment.
How does this Moonie case apply to the Society? The Society's blood booklet Society has half-truths in their blood booklet. The book was "published" in 1990, but it has been printed since. The 12/2005 Kingdom Ministry tells parents to use it to train their children. So, it's current stuff even though it was published in 1990, and the Society is currently putting its stamp on it. People have been writing the Society for years about the misrepresentations in the secular sections of this booklet. Yes, the Society has more literature on blood. But CDs/DVDs are created & edited by the Society, the appearing doctors may be paid by the Society for their viewpoint, and the listener doesn't get to hear the Society's complete question or the doctor's complete response. As the blood booklet uses quotes from doctors who wrote in major medical journals, it is a better avenue to figure out if/where/how the Society misrepresented facts. You seemed to indicate that there was alot of discussion on just the booklet's misrepresentations. Isn't according to Civil Procedure Rule 9, mispresentations must be pled with "particularity" and how many misrepresentations did she list our of all the quotes from the secular sections that were adequately referenced by the Society?
Here's an example. Housewife is greeted at door by JWs. She begins a study. After a few months, the study turns to the blood doctrine. The brothers bring out the blood pamphlet. She reads it. (It has lies in it.) The Society's been printing this booklet for years, and has had ample warnings from readers that it contains those lies. But, she doesn't know the lies and believes the blood doctrine both for religious and secular reasons. She reads in the Watchtower that people/doctors/lawyers who push blood are doing work orchestrated by Satan. She knows that if she takes blood, she will lose relationships with her family, friends, and business friends through shunning.

What does this equal Mr. Eduardo Esq?

= Society knowingly gives false lie that is potentially life damaging + those who oppose the blood stance are agents of Satan/shunning.
= Misrepresentation + undue coercion.

It's worse than the Moonies, because:
1) the JW recruit could have died/did die/did have organ failure from lack of blood. In the Moonies, the Young Lawyer lived a year with flowers on a farm and had some pychological damages.
2) In the Moonie case, the young lawyer did find out the lie and still became a Moonie. One could say that he "ratified" the lie (an argument that the Moonies also tried, but the court said bullshxx!) In the JW recruit, she could never have ratified the lie, because it was not admitted/discovered....but was subtle and hidden in the booklet's writing style. Plus, she's warned to not read "opposing" literature and must "avoid independent thinking" and "thinking ahead of the Society."

Ms. L-W's essay did not include undue coercion, from what I gather from your review. You mentioned that it was about 40 pages long. Perhaps that is because the Journal of Church and State had a page limit or required she only discuss one of the many torts that might be applicable to this situation. When I get my hardcopy, I'll compare her essay's # of pages with the other.

Ms. L-W’s reasons as to why she did or did not give any more personal information, may be completely personal. But, it sounds like it made her mad enough to start a lawsui...similar to Mr. Molko. She did disclose her relationshp, something that is usually required in academic papers. If she did not disclose anything, then her paper would REALLY be discredited.

Why didn't she sue? Perhaps the mother's will gave everything to someone else. Perhpas her mother was old/sick and wouldn't make "much money" in court (you'd understand this reason). Perhaps she'd rather write an article to change the future (rather than make money off her mother's death).

103

REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

by Oroborus21 in

note: the catholic molestation cases have mostly been evaluated under employment law theories not the tort of misrepresentation or under non-fraud related tort claims]; fails to address important legal considerations such as standing and statute of limitations; and finally and most importantly, the essay fails to address in any meaningful way the inevitable constitutional arguments that would be raised by opposing (watchtower) counsel.

supreme court justices do not have the time to browse through law journals and the implication that they would be interested in an essay is even more deceptive.

the society does not cite a 1960 study as evidence that blood transfusions are hazardous.. here is the actual quotation in context:.

skeeter1

My dad had a saying, "No one kicks a dead dog." I've read for days and days and days, Eduardo's kicking of Ms. L-W's credentials. Eduardo, did you ever call her to talk with her?

I've not been in this chat room for long, but why does Eduardo feel the need to put "Esq" on the end of his title? Is it the lawyer's "ego" talking? Are we to "bow down" to him as the expert in religion law & legal analysis? "Lord Eduardo"

I think Eduardo sounds just a little jealous that he didn't think of ths argument. His signature shows that he NEEDS to be known as an attorney - it's his identity. So he must now "fight" Ms. L-W (maybe she doesn't even like being called that), and discredits her becuase she was recently admitted to the bar, a woman, and from Florida. How immature can you get? Ideas come from all ages, and I've met plenty a young attorney who can out-argue the old guys. Eduardo, I have a science background. Did you know that Einstein worked on his theories while he was a clerk in the patent office? Would you attack Einstein based on his "credentials"?

1093

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo in

if i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?

have i ever misled you?

i'll answer that--no!

skeeter1

For all those who want to discredit the Journal of Church and State, part of the JW Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, take this!:

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

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:

Henry J. Abraham
University of Virginia William J. Byron, S. J.
Holy Trinity Rectory

Robert F. Drinan, S.J.
Georgetown University Law Center

W. Cole Durham, Jr.
J. Rueben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University

Ronald B. Flowers
Texas Christian University

Edward M. Gaffney, Jr.
Valparaiso University School of Law

Edwin S. Gaustad
University of Calif. at Riverside, Emeritus

Robin Johansen
Remcho, Johansen & Purcell

William A. Kaplin
The Catholic University of America

Franklin H. Littell
Temple University, Emeritus

Benito Lopez, Jr.
Association of Catholic
Colleges and Universities

Kent Greenawalt
Columbia University School of Law

Michael B. Greenbaum
Jewish Theological Seminary of America

A. E. Dick Howard
University of Virginia School of Law

Philip R. Moots
Moots, Cope & Weinberger, Co.,

Robert M. O'Neil
University of Virginia Norman Redlich
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

Kathleen C. Santora
Georgetown University

Sheldon E. Steinbach
American Council on Education

Sharon Worthing Vaino
Attorney-at-Law, New York City

Charles M. Whelan, S.J.
Fordham University School of Law

Baylor University established the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies in 1957, so named in honor of an outstanding alumnus, an ardent advocate of religious liberty, and a distinguished author of publications on church and state. The Institute is the oldest and most well established facility of its kind located in a university setting. It is exclusively devoted to research in the broad field of church and state and the advancement of religious liberty around the world.

Recognition of the work of the Institute has come from a variety of sources through the years, including the Max Nathan Memorial Library Award for the Institute's contributions to human relations, the Religious Liberty Award from the First World Congress on Religious Liberty (Rome), the "Premio Arturo Carlo Jemolo," a prestigious award conferred by a well known scholarly society in Turin, Italy, and important awards from the Council on Religious Freedom (U.S.) and the American Jewish Congress.

In addition to gifts from individual donors, including a substantial contribution from Ethel and Simon Bunn for an endowed chair in church-state studies, grants to the Institute in support of its programs have been made by various organizations and foundations, including the Council on Religious Freedom, the Scottish Rite Foundation of Freemasonry, the American Jewish Committee of the Southwest, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the M. C. and Mattie Caston Foundation, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, the Lilly Endowment, and The Pew Charitable Trusts.

The teaching and research faculty of the Church-State Institute, displayed from left to right in photo: Dr. Charles McDaniel, Dr. Barry Hankins, Dr. Derek Davis (Director), Dr. Francis J. Beckwith (Associate Director), Dr. Marc H. Ellis.

The Carroll Library Building was constructed in 1902. It
houses the library and offices of the Church-State Institute,
as well as the Texas Collection and the Institute of Oral History.

91

RE: blood issue and media.

by avishai in

jw
friends

please send letters to stephen bates requesting an article on this issue.

many of you may not see immediately how important this matter is.

beyond the other legal ramifications, i.e, the wts lying about secular info., intentional deception, etc., the blood issue is a huge one.

skeeter1

The best case is where the person refused a blood transfusion, but lived to tell the story. This happens when someone has a heart attack, and is quickly revived. It's my understanding that the kidneys are one of the first organs to go, and these people usually need dialysis for the rest of their lives. They can talk.

The next best case is where the decedent is a child. The parents can testify to how the Society's deception lead them to teach their children the wrong things.

But, a good case still exists where an adult died. Remember Anna Nicole Smith? She was to get $$$$$ of dough from her old hubby's will. Now, everyone is disputing her husband's signed, notarized, witnessed will. While Anna's case is probably more about coercion/influence...which is also present here with the Watchtower but just not in this article (I don't think as it's title is "misrepresentation"), live people can give evidence about the decedent's mental state. Yes, doctors and family members and anyone could testify to how this person believed "everything" the Society told him, without question, "hook, line, and sinker."

10

BIG NEWS Copyright Laws & how to order good copy!

by skeeter1 in

the big news is in the journal of church & state out of baylor university's autumn 2005's issue.. for a few bucks ($4 + $1 shipping), you can get a copy sent to any us address (work or home) right now (foreign addresses may cost a few dollars more).

go to http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm .

there is even a special line just for this article!

skeeter1

Just the BIG NEWS article is $5 (includes $1 shipping)

The entire journal, which includes the other two articles of interest to JWs is $10 (includes $2 shpping - more shipping weight).