Posts by Marvin Shilmer

31

Pedophilia, slander, the process, culpability

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

1. jane doe reports her suspicion to elders that her jw husband is sexually molesting their two daughters.

2. jw elders initiate an investigation.. 3. suspect husband denies the crime.. 4. children do not corroborate the accusation.

5. medical examiners do not offer any corroboration of the accusation.

Marvin Shilmer

Hi again, SixofNine!

Too often answering questions about JW life ends in "what does the Society say about it." There is a Talmud, a Watchtower one. There is also an oral law, in fact the WTS prefers its oral laws over its written Talmud.

I don’t understand your point about each member needing to deal with issues on a personal basis. I agree with the statement, I just don’t see how it relates to what we have said between us. Can you explain. I would like to understand what you mean.

MadApostate:

You DID NOT ask me what legal civil wrong the WTS or its elders were guilty of IN THIS CASE. You asked me if I could enlighten "as to what "legally recognized" civil wrong the WTS could successfully be sued for?" I answered THAT question!

In the Berry case whether the WTS can or will be successfully sued is, drumroll…. NOT YET DECIDED!

The potential is there for a successful suit based upon inappropriate action performed by the WTS via its agents. Whether this will succeed I cannot say, and from what I see none of us can. None of us are privy to all the relevant and useable facts!

As for it being a "given" that elders are agents of the WTS anytime they perform a duty required of a JW elder, it is true in those cases they are acting as WTS agents. But that is the whole question—were THOSE elders, under THOSE circumstances performing a duty REQUIRED of JW elders, or were they acting on their own as THEY thought they should act despite known WTS policy? You and I probably have our answer to that question, but how the court of NH will decide it is another story.

In an employment setting supervisors are generally regarded as agents of the employer. What if a supervisor insisted on sex for promotion from a subordinate? This is called sexual harassment! Is the supervisor acting as a company agent then? If a company has formed and made known its strict policy against sexual harassment, and they take immediate remedial action if and when they hear of each incident of sexual harassment, then courts usually would agree the supervisor was acting on his or her own in that case and not as an agent for the company. So supervisors are not always acting as agents for the company just because they are exercising power in their position.

I do not have the time to locate a case where successful suits were filed against the WTS for character assassination. I know these cases exist because a long time Bethel lawyer has told me of the cases over the years. It is not new. That mistakes were made is obvious, the WTS has settled in some cases! Other cases they fought and won. Just who made mistakes has differed over the years. Why do you think over the years the WTS has put so much emphasis on EXACTLY what wording elders should use in making judicial announcements, particularly in the last 20 years? Answer: they needed to make policy well known to the point of documenting it with each congregation for the very purpose of distancing the WTS from elders who say too much during the announcements. Just within the last year or two elders received a detailed letter giving EXACT wording for several types of announcements where character assassination had been a problem. Do you think the WTS makes this crap up just for the heck of it? The reason is they have been sued, and it cost them!

As for truth being an absolute defense in a case of accused slander, I have news for you: the burden of proof falls on the one doing the talking, not the one being talked about. Truth is only a defense if the one talking can prove what they are saying! In cases where a single witness is the ONLY evidence outcomes becomes questionable because they are not always believed. If they are not believe, even if what they say is true, then they have no defense. So truth is not always a defense in a court of law. Truth is only a defense if you can prove it. If you can’t prove it, even though it might be true, the one talked about need not say a word in order to prevail.

31

Pedophilia, slander, the process, culpability

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

1. jane doe reports her suspicion to elders that her jw husband is sexually molesting their two daughters.

2. jw elders initiate an investigation.. 3. suspect husband denies the crime.. 4. children do not corroborate the accusation.

5. medical examiners do not offer any corroboration of the accusation.

Marvin Shilmer

Hi, SixofNine!

The Watchtower of August 15, 1997 made the point that it is not slander for a single witnesses to report a sin (crime in this case) to those having authority and responsibility to oversee and correct matters. The issue article was specifically speaking of congregational authority, but the same holds true for secular authority as shown in the WTS’ counsel for victims of a crime like rape to report it as soon as possible to secular authorities. Oftentimes cases of rape are one person’s word against another, but the WTS does not consider this reporting to authority to be slander. (Ref. March 8, 1993 Awake, How to Cope With Rape)

Hello, Tina.

The WTS likes to have gag orders in place in settlement of civil suits. I don’t know that this is always the case, though. Sometimes a case is already notorious, so settling it sends a signal all by itself. For that reason, notorious cases are not all that important to put a full gag order in place. The individual already screamed foul loud and clear, and everyone knows it. From a purely business perspective it becomes more important in these cases to put a gag on the settlement amount. The settlement language will make clear that no guilt is being admitted or implied by the offer. So both sides can go on telling their own version of events as loud as they want, but the accuser looses the ability to prove their case in open court. Eventually everyone just gets tired of listening and the case dies a slow death in the public eye.

Greeting, MadApostate.

Got news for you: the ONLY WAY actions of congregational elders can invite suits against the WTS is through them acting as agents for the WTS. If the WTS can show elders were not acting in their appointed capacity during a deed, or if they can show elders were not acting in accord with KNOWN policy, then they have a defense against this connection.

The WTS has been successfully sued for character assassination. Usually this happened in cases where elders publicly announced just a little too much in the course of a judicial proceeding, like specific reasons a person was disfellowshipped. The WTS was sued because those elders were acting as agents of the WTS during the announcement. If Anderson can show elders acted inappropriately AND as agents of the WTS during the inappropriate action then he has set a precedent that will haunt the WTS’ purse.

Hi, Maximus!

I liked that article about Patriarch Lucaris too! Did you notice the article mentioned how he corresponded with "reformers"?

31

Pedophilia, slander, the process, culpability

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

1. jane doe reports her suspicion to elders that her jw husband is sexually molesting their two daughters.

2. jw elders initiate an investigation.. 3. suspect husband denies the crime.. 4. children do not corroborate the accusation.

5. medical examiners do not offer any corroboration of the accusation.

Marvin Shilmer

1. Jane Doe reports her suspicion to elders that her JW husband is sexually molesting their two daughters.

2. JW elders initiate an investigation.

3. Suspect husband denies the crime.

4. Children do not corroborate the accusation.

5. Medical examiners do not offer any corroboration of the accusation.

In this case if Jane Doe went on to report her suspicions solely to secular authorities then current WTS policy does not suggest bringing an accusation of slander against her within is judicial process. This is because her accusation is not made outside of protected confidential sources. The same could be said if she were to make her accusations to a medical examiner of her children or to an attorney hired to offer legal counsel on the matter. BUT if Jane Doe made her accusations outside a protected agency then, according to WTS policy, a case of slander could be brought against her within the JW judicial system and in many secular jurisdictions too.

When elders have sanctioned a JW who keeps their accusations within protected agencies then they have acted contrary to WTS policy. This happens all the time, and the WTS knows it. We see Brown actually deflecting hard questions with this bit of fact in his public comments on the subject. Here is the question: at what point is the WTS responsible for inappropriate actions of local elders?

There are many avenues of defense here, but when an elder acts as they think they should and there is no WRITTEN policy against it or otherwise well understood, then they will most likely be viewed legally as acting as an agent of the WTS. There is an important legal aspect to split here, one I am sure barrister Anderson (of the Berry lawsuit) is more than well aware of. For example, since the WTS tells JWs to report cases of rape to secular authorities then any elder who advises otherwise is acting outside WTS policy and, in this instance, might not be viewed legally as an agent of the WTS’ policy. What this elder would be guilty of is acting contrary to WTS policy, and if found out should be at least warned of his offense, if not removed. If the WTS knew of such an incident and failed to take appropriate disciplinary action (warning and training, at least) then the WTS would be culpable in future cases where the same thing occurred, even though its WRITTEN policy says otherwise. So, every action of an elder may not be legally construeable as them acting as a WTS agent, but many can, depending on circumstances.

On the question of WTS agent or not, agency is particularly evident when an ENTIRE body of elders acts in concert. This demonstrates common understanding. Whether a policy is WRITTEN is easy enough to find out—just check official records. But when an entire body acts in concert then one of two things is evident. 1- That actual WTS policy is as those elders acted or 2- that those elders have not been trained adequately for how they are APPOINTED to act. This means in cases where an entire elder body acts in concert that, WRITTEN policy or not, it is evident the WTS holds at least a measure of blame. Either they failed to provide adequate policy or else they failed to train appropriately for what they APPOINTED those elders to do. Either way the WTS is to blame.

One of the problems facing the WTS in the Berry case is that prior to 1989 (I believe) the WTS did not provide very good WRITTEN policies to elders about how to handle cases of reported child abuse. This left individual elders and bodies of elders to act as WTS agents as THEY thought best. This led to many out of court settlements where the WTS settled civil claims by offering monetary compensation to victims. This avoided leaving a paper trail having the effect of establishing the WTS held culpability across the board when other elder bodies acted the same way. It was a cost cutting maneuver.

If the Berry case goes the distance it could leave precedent leading to a virtual avalanche of these claims, with many of them being successful. The important precedent would not be that the WTS is responsible in the Berry case. Many factors could lead to that end for the Berry case. The important precedent would be that WTS policies were, at the time, legally insufficient or legally wrong and therefore the WTS is culpable. This precedent could bankrupt the WTS. For this reason we can expect WTS legal to fight harder to keep this precedent from being set than trying to avoid a simple judgment of culpability in the Berry case. Loosing the Berry case is not what bothers the WTS. Establishing WTS policy as inappropriate or inadequate is what scares them. Barrister Anderson knows perfectly well that if the Berry case can set the RIGHT precedent then he can go about the task of advertising for other similar WTS victimizations prior to 1989 with practical certainty of court sanctioned settlements.

My two cents.

37

Blood and RANK dishonesty!

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

Marvin Shilmer

I can take an orange slice; okay so far, but I can't eat it.
Then I can take the juice out of it and take it in; that's okay.
I can eat the rest of the slice; that's okay.
I just can't eat it in the package form.

Hi again, Maximus.

That’s right. You could even eat the squeezed juice and the squeezed out pulp AT THE SAME TIME, and it would be allowed, no problem.

Who decides what packages are forbidden and which ones are allowed? Unless anyone can show it to me in the Bible, the only other deciding agency is, as Waiting says, the WTS. If we could honestly justify this to Bible students we would be okay. Any takers?

37

Blood and RANK dishonesty!

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

Marvin Shilmer

The red cell is a package to carry hemoglobin.
The Society says that I can take hemoglobin but not in its red cell package.
An orange slice is a package of orange juice.
The Society says that I can take the orange juice, but not eat the slice or the package.
Have I missed something?

Hi, Maximus!

Your conclusion is close to correct but not entirely correct. More precisely WTS policy allows ANY part of blood as long as it is not taken in specified forms (combinates). What do I mean?

Red cells are a good example to illustrate the point. In its own literature, WTS policy is not specific that hemoglobin is allowed. Instead WTS policy says ANY fraction of red cells is allowed. This means ALL red cell parts (membrane, hemoglobin and water) are all allowed as long as they are not taken COMBINED IN RED CELL FORM. They can all be taken together or separately, just not combined in red cell form.

It is little wonder the WTS recently deemed it an act of disassociation for a JW to conscientiously accept forbidden blood therapies. Can you IMAGINE elders trying to explain to parents why they were being disfellowshipped for conscientiously allowing platelet therapy to their child when another set of parents who allowed hemoglobin therapy are viewed “in good standing.” Taking this ONE STEP FURTHER, can you imagine this scenario where the hemoglobin accepting father is an elder, who despite accepting the hemoglobin therapy remains an elder? How do elders explain this to the other parents? Taking this to YET ANOTHER LEVEL, can you imagine this very same elder sitting on a judicial committee judging the other parents for conscientiously accepting platelet therapy for their child? There is just no way the hemoglobin accepting elder could do it, not and have any sense of conscience at all! Like I said, it is little wonder the WTS does not want elders having to judge and explain these sorts of absolutely stupid and arbitrary discriminations! Little wonder they threw this into the category of disassociation.

37

Blood and RANK dishonesty!

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

Marvin Shilmer

Oh, one other thing about the hemoglobin stuff, Marvin. The classic line by the Hospital Information People and Hospital Liaison People is that hemoglobin is not blood anymore because it is made by specialized scientific processes.

Yes, hawk, they do try and dress it up, don’t they! I bite my lip when comparing references to hemoglobin solutions.

When these substances were BANNED (prior to June 2000):

WTS HIS representative refers to it as "a blood substitute which uses hemoglobin taken from a human or animal source." (Ref: Bailey and Ariga, Artificial Cells, Blood Sub…, 1998 p. 573)

After these substances were ALLOWED (as of June 2000):

WTS HIS representative refers to it as "haemoglobin based oxygen carriers." (Ref: Wade, BMJ 2001;322:1123, 5 May. Link: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7294/1123? )

Amazing isn’t it? We are supposed to see it as an illegal "hemoglobin taken from an animal" one day and the more innocent "haemoglobin based oxygen carrier" the next day.

Exactly what is this hemoglobin whatchamacallit? A company named Biopure manufactures a brand called Hemopure for human use. (Another similar product called Oxyglobin is produced by the same company—the WTS has yet to say if this is okay for pets owned by JWs.) According to Biopure, the manufacturing process of Hemopure is as follows:

At Biopure's separation facility, a filtration process removes plasma proteins in the bovine blood. Washed cells are next placed in a centrifuge that separates the red blood cells from the rest of the blood. The hemoglobin is extracted from the red blood cells and is then diafiltered to remove red blood cell wall debris and other contaminants. The resulting material is a cell-free hemoglobin intermediate. A semi-continuous purification process involving a high performance liquid chromatography process purifies the hemoglobin intermediate. Next, the purified hemoglobin is polymerized, or linked, by the addition of a cross-linking agent. Polymerized and stabilized material is then fractionated and concentrated. The final product is filtered into sterilized batch holding tanks until it is sterile filled into bags.

Basically Biopure describes hemoglobin being squashed out of red cells and then strained to eliminate the pulp (cell wall debris). Since hemoglobin alone would not provide a suitable media to effectively absorb and transport oxygen in the human circulatory system, it must first be cross-linked (bonded) with another material that essentially performs a job similar to the original cell membrane. This is called polymerization. Once hemoglobin is polymerized with another agent that allows it to take on and transport oxygen then it can be used effectively as the oxygen observing and emitting substance that it is, that is always was, even when it was in the host cow. This process is a significant medical tool in that it eliminates the need for type matching, and the shelf life is increased considerably. Because the final hemoglobin element is smaller that the original cell form, this product is also useful in cases of arterial blockage because the smaller elements are able to deliver oxygen through smaller openings.

In the end what is done? Hemoglobin is taken from a cow that has been killed and bled for the sole purpose of giving human beings life. There is no dressing this up. A cow is a cow, I don’t care if you polymerize it with a dress or anything else! Hemoglobin is hemoglobin. And it is hemoglobin that makes products like Hemopure tick.

Maximus,

We certainly agree about this WTS blood policy being another form of child abuse, a deadly one. Maybe we should give this a name. There are different sorts of child abuse. Maybe we should call this Child Blood Molestation (CBM)! My god, the WTS admits to it! They even posted faces of children killed as a result of this blood molestation! Not their finest hour.

37

Blood and RANK dishonesty!

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

Marvin Shilmer

Hi, voltaire!

I considered ignorance in defense of dishonesty, but it is just not a viable alternative. There are well-qualified physicians on staff for the WTS. No one can make me believe they are unaware of facts like the natural person-to-person exchange of whole blood between monochorionic twins and triplets. Besides that I know for a fact the WTS has had this detail and others like it pointed out. What do they do? Bury their collect head in sand at the expense of millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses looking for answers! This is an indisputable and RANK act of dishonesty!

Greetings, Maximus.

You are correct in assessing how the WTS has tried to add credence to its policy, and it stinks. The idea of enforcing this brand of teaching is gasoline on an already burning fire of man injuring man.

37

Blood and RANK dishonesty!

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

the thread started by maximus named gb admits it has no answers, blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from.

if you have not already read maximus thread, you should.

i felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion.

Marvin Shilmer

The thread started by Maximus named GB Admits it Has No Answers, Blood ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9056&site=3 ) is chock full of good information and is what this thread stems from. If you have not already read Maximus’ thread, you should. I felt like adding my two cents about one aspect of that discussion. This thread is the result.

*** w90 6/1 31 Questions From Readers ***
It is significant that the blood system of a pregnant woman is separate from that of the fetus in her womb; their blood types are often different. The mother does not pass her blood into the fetus. Formed elements (cells) from the mother’s blood do not cross the placental barrier into the fetus’ blood, nor does the plasma as such. In fact, if by some injury the mother’s and the fetus’ blood mingle, health problems can later develop (Rh or ABO incompatibility).

The WTS comment seems to assign significance to whether parts of blood are cellular or not, as if that makes a difference, when form (e.g., cellular or not) is of no significance at all in relation to what passes between mother and child. SIZE is the sole factor determining what moves from mother to child (or vice versa) by way of the placenta. Whether a particle is cellular or not is has nothing to do with it. HIV and AIDS are formed elements, and they will pass from mother to child.

What about unnatural exchanges of blood parts due to injury? Auspice of injury is brought up apparently to explain why sometimes parts of blood like red cells do exchange between a mother and her unborn, indicating this is less than a god approved use of blood parts. How about hemoglobin? Does anyone care to guess the only way that significant amounts of hemoglobin could get from a mother to her unborn child? You got it! Injury! Probably severe injury! But guess what, no matter the amount, the WTS allows hemoglobin without possible repercussion of shunning from JWs! So much for any unnatural exchange theory!

Speaking of significant details, the absence of any WTS discussion of the natural person-to-person exchange of blood parts (even whole blood!) between monochorionic twins and triplets is conspicuous, and telling. As has been noted on this forum, in its deductions the WTS has conveniently presented its own version of one example of natural person-to-person exchange of blood parts (i.e., mother to child via placenta) while ignoring a discussion of the WHOLE topic of natural person-to-person exchanges of blood parts. This sort of selective examination and reasoning is just plain dishonest! I know some WTS apologetics have argued that dishonesty is a state of mind and therefore we cannot definitively prove dishonesty on the WTS’ part, but this discussion puts that argument to shame. Other than dishonesty there is just no viable reason the WTS would remain CONSPICUOUSLY silent on a discussion of the WHOLE topic of natural person-to-person exchange of blood parts. There are plenty of WTS physicians! Would anyone seriously try to argue that not a single ONE of these physicians has told the WTS of the natural blood sharing between monochorionic twins and triplets?

The depth of headburying by the WTS on the subject of blood is simply beyond belief! Then there is the WTS ignoring well-reasoned pleas from its own “practicing members!” (Ref: jw-media.org) Reliable informers tell me a mountain load of letters and calls have been received from “practicing members” with pleas for the to WTS address flaws in current policy, to no avail. They are ignored or else questions and requests are dodged. What rank hypocrisy and dishonesty it is to represent a policy as scriptural and then turn around and REFUSE to correct faults in plain view of any reasonable person, to say nothing of ignoring those who are THEIR OWN!

36

Special Judicial Committees

by JEMIMAH in

jw
friends

you will have to understand that i have to change a few details here and there so that i can't be identified.. as many of you are aware i serve as an elder, and from time to time i have been asked by the service desk to handle matters for them by means of "the special committee arrangement".

(a phrase you will not find in any wt letter or elders textbook.

) just to explain.. "a special committee is often set up when, an original committee (ojc)decides to disfellowship an individual, who then appeals against the judgement.

Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Ozziepost!

I'm sorry, Marvin, but I don't agree that there is a scriptural basis for shunning at all. If we examine the few texts that speak of how to treat congregation members who are flouting their Christian freedom we cannot see shunning mentioned.
[And later…]
Nowhere in the Christian scriptures do we find support for shunning, especially as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses.

These are odd comments Ozziepost, considering your other conclusions agree that some measure of shunning is scriptural. Look again at what you wrote: “So Paul exhorted [the congregation] not to share meals with him.” And: “John was warning against providing food and shelter [to heretical teachers], since this would be an investment in the ‘wicked work’ of false teachers and would give public approval.” Those acts are acts of shunning.

Since you left off what I believe was a meaningful qualifier here, let me say again “I think there is a scriptural basis for a congregation of Christians to sometimes initiate shunning of “brothers.” This calls for judicial action, though maybe not the same as promoted by the WTS.” Note: both my thinking here nor later supports shunning as taught by the WTS, and your comments were as though I did. What I thought was made clear apparently was not clear.

Shunning can take on many forms. Shunning can range from single acts of shunning to total avoidance, to considering a person as dead. From what shunning you concluded yourself, I don’t see any major differences between us. Any act of shunning requires some act of judicial (=discriminating) review. When I spoke of judicial action I was not speaking of the WTS practices. The intention of my post was specifically to denounce current WTS shunning policies as unfair and wrong. My thinking is WTS shunning policy should be scrapped, and that is what I said.

Thanks for pointing out what appears to have been a misunderstood expression on my part, that I could clear it up.

15

Give blood?

by spike in

jw
friends

i had a conversation with my doctor.

i decided to use blood.

i wanted to know my blood type.

Marvin Shilmer

I would be far more uncomfortable taking something I would not give myself. If we TAKE we should GIVE.

This aspect of WTS policy is one of the most odorous ones. Thousands of JWs use from the blood supply, and the WTS knows it! How many give what they use?