"The little man with the gold rings on his hand." Was an expression often used to to describe the celebate gay DO with an ego problem. He wears a rolex along with several large gold diamond rings. He always wanted his accomadations "just so" and if they were not up to his "level" he would complain and move often insulting the host. He was also a sneaky little turd who would shine on to your face and then stab you in the back with the powers that be. He is originially from Alaska where he served for several years. He was moved due to some scandal that left him as the odd man out. No pun intended. IF you are a JW my suggestion would be to keep him in all the Crown Royal he can drink and do not let him get behind you.
messenger
JoinedPosts by messenger
-
9
My district overseer in Arizona
by Preston inbrother emsahw (i think that's how his name was spelled) was my district overseer.
he was also the most flamboyantly effeminate higher-upper of any witness i came across (yeah, yeah...i know).
for many witnesses he was eccentric, from my standpoint, well, you know...
-
-
-
46
Stop calling Britain, England.
by sleepy injust a small request to you all.. britian is not england.. england is a part of britian, as is wales, scotland .a lot of what you may think is english is in fact welsh or scotish.. it is like me refering to the usa as new york .. if this carries on i'll have no other choice but to call the usa canada.
-
-
messenger
Isn't England a quaint little village in the south of France??
-
11
Elder Rips Off Elderly
by messenger inthis gives a whole new meaning to a "hiding place from the wind.".
suspect in texas to return to miami.
staff reports.
-
-
messenger
This gives a whole new meaning to a "hiding place from the wind."
SUSPECT IN TEXAS TO RETURN TO MIAMI
Staff reportS04/05/2002
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Broward Metro
Page 3BA former Miami man is on his way back from San Antonio, Texas, where he was arrested earlier this week and charged with running a fraudulent securities scheme that targeted mostly elderly investors.
Raymond L. Knowles, an elder in his Jehovah's Witness church, preyed upon other members of his congregation, according to a federal indictment. He persuaded them to invest in promissory notes, promising an annual return of 8.5 percent to 9.25 percent. The notes were worthless.
Through his company, All Diversified Financial Services Inc., Knowles issued more than $533,000 of the notes, the indictment states.
After his arrest Tuesday in Texas, Knowles was ordered to return to Miami and released on a $500,000 personal surety bond.
-
21
THE END IS COMING!
by MavMan init is a fact that the end is coming.. whether it's the end of your natural life or the end of this world, one thing is for certain, the end is near.
-
-
messenger
I didn't even know the "end" masturbated....
-
7
Calgary Issue Continues
by messenger inhttp://www.canoe.ca/nationalticker/canoe-wire.jehovahs-transfusion.html.
april 3, 2002 .
alta.
-
-
messenger
. http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Jehovahs-Transfusion.html
April 3, 2002
Alta. court to hear appeal of Jehovah's Witness teen over blood transfusions
CALGARY (CP) -- A 16-year-old Jehovah's Witness who is being forced to receive blood transfusions will try to convince a judge Thursday that she is mature enough to choose her own treatment in her battle against leukemia.
The girl's lawyer plans to ask the Court of Queen's Bench to overturn a lower court judgment that said the girl doesn't have the maturity to refuse the transfusions, partly due to her religious upbringing. The Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits consuming blood in any way."I find that her life experience, her social experience has been very limited," provincial court Judge Karen Jordan ruled on Feb. 18.
"That is not unusual in the context of the environment in which she was raised," Jordan said. "Many children are limited by various social and religious circumstances.
"It is not a criticism, it is simply a finding of fact."
The judge gave the Alberta government temporary custody of the girl and granted a medical treatment order allowing the transfusions.
The girl and her family cannot be named because she is now a temporary ward of the province.
Since the court ruling, the girl has had intensive chemotherapy along with 12 blood transfusions. She is scheduled for another 18. Her doctors say she is certain to die without transfusions, compared with a 40-50 per cent chance of survival with them. Her health has now improved to the point where she's been able to go home on weekends.
Lawyer David Gnam has argued the treatment violates his client's constitutional rights to equality and freedom of religion.
"Her rights as a mature minor, as a person capable of making the medical decision, are being refused simply because of her arbitrary age," Gnam said.
Jordan ruled after hearing testimony from the girl, her parents, doctors and child welfare workers at a makeshift courtroom at the Alberta Children's Hospital.
The case has caused a rift in the family. The girl's two sisters and mother support her stand against the transfusions, while her father has consented to them and says he is now shunned by the Jehovah's Witnesses as a result.
The father says his daughter would likely be dead if the family hadn't moved to Alberta from Belleville, Ont., three years ago. Her lawyer says his client wouldn't be battling the issue in court if she were living in another jurisdiction.
In Alberta, the Child Welfare Act states that the province has to protect children under 18 by ensuring they get essential medical treatment.
In Ontario and several other provinces, such laws affect those under 16. Ontario also has its Health Care Consent Act, which allows children regardless of age to decide their own medical treatment as long as they are fully informed, understand the consequences and are individually deemed a mature minor.
"I understand there is always a risk in my not taking the blood transfusion and that there is a good possibility that I might die," the Calgary girl told court. "And I do not want to die."
But accepting blood transfusions would be disrespectful to God, she said.
"Because of all the things that he has done for me, such a loving and merciful God, and he does not ask for much in putting down his principles, and that would be turning my back on him.
"I don't think I could do that. That would hurt me too much."
Her tearful mother testified that she supports her daughter's wish to refuse transfusions -- even though it may lead to death.
"It upsets me at the thought, but I have my hope from learning through the Bible that Jehovah God promises us a paradise," she said.
"I know I will see her there because she died with her faith intact."
The girl's father testified that his daughter has had a sheltered life and is too immature to understand the concept of death.
"She's had very little life experience," he said. "She's never really seen anyone die or seen a tragedy or experienced a traumatic experience."
He recalled several conversations between church members and his daughter during recent hospital visits.
"They were encouraging her to die for her faith," he told court.
"And that Jehovah would look upon her as doing the right thing, or they would say that she was doing the right thing by dying and not accepting blood transfusions."
Gnam intends to introduce new evidence showing that his client has gained valuable life and death experiences while in hospital.
"She has been in the position that Judge Jordan has said she never had experienced before," he said.
Gnam has also applied to the court for his client to go to California or Ontario to receive alternative treatment that doesn't involve blood transfusions.
Alberta government officials said they will allow the move only if her doctors approve the proposed treatment. -
2
Supreme Court Blood
by messenger inhttp://www.newsobserver.com/ncwire/news/story/1108505p-1106534c.html.
jehovah's witness takes blood fight to state supreme court .
jeffrey collins .
-
-
messenger
. http://www.newsobserver.com/ncwire/news/Story/1108505p-1106534c.html
Jehovah's Witness takes blood fight to state Supreme Court
JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press WriterCOLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- In a choice between following his patient's wishes to the letter or saving his life, surgeon Glen Strickland chose a lifesaving blood transfusion.
But the patient was a Jehovah's Witness, who believe blood is sacred and not to be shared with others. And Charles Harvey had signed a form saying he did not want any blood products used on him.
The transfusion was approved by his mother because he was incapacitated. But Harvey, a Greensboro, N.C., resident, said it amounted to medical battery and sued Strickland.
The case, which pits a doctor's desire to do everything to save a patient versus a patient's desires before surgery, is expected to go before the state Supreme Court on Tuesday morning.
There are nearly a million Jehovah's Witnesses across the country, and the religion forbids blood transfusions, citing the section of Leviticus in the Bible that reads: "Whatsoever man...eats any manner of blood, I will cut him off from among his people."
The case hinges on whether Harvey's mother, who was listed as an emergency contact for the surgery, had permission to overrule her son's wishes and order the blood transfusion after Strickland told her Harvey would likely die from a heart attack otherwise.
Strickland's attorney said the mother could because Harvey's complications from the voluntary surgery to remove a blood clot from his neck were unforeseen at the time Harvey filled out his order to use no blood products.
But Harvey's lawyer argued she wasn't authorized under state law to make decisions on her son's behalf, especially when he had made his wishes known in writing.
Patients have died in South Carolina before by refusing blood. Doctors at a Rock Hill hospital allowed a Jehovah's Witness to die in 1999 after she refused a transfusion following complications from a stillbirth.
Harvey, 55, didn't find out about the transfusion until several months after he recovered from the clot and a stroke caused by complications from the January 1997 surgery. But he said time didn't lessen the blow.
"I'm just scared. I worry all the time," Harvey testified in his 2000 trial, which ended with a Circuit Court judge ruling in Strickland's favor. "I can't hardly sleep. I don't sleep at all."
During the trial, Harvey's lawyer, Calvin Rouse, showed Strickland a form he filled out from the Jehovah's Witnesses saying he would not deliver blood products to a patient who requested none. He also showed the surgeon the form Harvey signed asking for no blood products.
But Strickland said Harvey's situation had changed since the two discussed the blood issue before the surgery.
"That document says in principle you will not deliver blood," Strickland testified. "To me, that means, that's what I do for everybody. You try not to give blood."
Strickland's lawyer Charles Carpenter Jr. even quote a Jehovah's Witness elder, who said Harvey is forgiven for taking in someone else's blood because he was not conscious to make the decision.
"The doctor saved the patient's life. The patient has not been exposed to any disease and has not contracted any disease," Carpenter said. "The patient's own religion finds him fault-free. The doctor would have been wrong to do anything different from what was done."
-----------------
second articleBlood fight taken to state Supreme Court
JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press WriterCOLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- When Charles Harvey signed a form saying he didn't want a blood transfusion during surgery in 1997, the Jehovah's Witness felt he was devoutly leaving his life in God's hands.
However, there were complications during the operation. Harvey's surgeon said he needed a blood transfusion to survive. With Harvey unconscious, Dr. Glen Strickland got permission for the procedure from Harvey's mother.
Strickland says the transfusion saved Harvey's life, but Harvey sued, saying the procedure was unnecessary and left him distraught because he had sinned against one of his religion's bedrock foundations.
Strickland "stole from me. He took something from me," said Harvey, who paused to wipe away tears after the South Carolina Supreme Court heard his case against the doctor Tuesday morning. "He took my rights."
A spokesman for a national hospital organization says the case shows why it is important to have a living will and to make sure patients, their doctors and their families talk about all possibilities before surgery.
"The worst time to be communicating about all of these things is in the middle of a crisis," American Hospital Association spokesman Rick Wade said.
There are nearly a million Jehovah's Witnesses across the country, and they cite verses in the Biblical books of Leviticus and Acts of the Apostles that they say forbid blood transfusions. One often-cited Old Testament passage in Leviticus reads: "Whatsoever man... eats any manner of blood, I will cut him off from among his people."
Harvey, who has since moved from Columbia to Greensboro, N.C., received the transfusion at Lexington Medical Center to unblock his carotid artery. He sued Strickland in 1998, claiming Strickland committed "medical battery" on him by ordering the transfusion. He said he had filled out a form saying he did not want a blood transfusion.
At a trial in 2000, a circuit court judge threw out the case after the jury hung with an 11-1 decision in Harvey's favor, his lawyer Calvin Rouse said. Rouse asked the justices to send the case back to the lower court for a new trial.
Harvey contends the form he completed upon admission meant he shouldn't be given blood under any circumstances.
But Strickland's attorney, Charles Carpenter Jr., said the stroke was an unforeseen emergency and the surgeon had to get consent again to treat Harvey further. Since the patient was unconscious, the decision fell to Harvey's mother, who he named an emergency contact.
"Then what do I have to do to make sure you as my doctor do what I want you to do?" Associate Justice E.C. Burnett asked Carpenter.
Carpenter said Harvey should have filled out a living will or power of attorney, because the form he filled out only applied to his wishes for the elective surgery, not the stroke that followed.
Burnett then asked if requiring a living will for all decisions in an operating room would invalidate any decision a patient made when filling out a consent form for surgery.
The justices also asked Carpenter if surgeons should be required to come out of the operating room every time an unforeseen circumstance came up to seek approval for what they do next.
But the high court also blames Rouse for choosing to have the judge rule instead of having him declare a mistrial and starting all over again.
The justices will issue their opinion at a later date.
Patients have died in South Carolina before by refusing blood. Doctors at a Rock Hill hospital allowed a Jehovah's Witness to die in 1999 after she refused a transfusion following complications from a stillbirth.
Harvey said he understands some people will wonder why he just doesn't appreciate the fact he's alive today and drop the suit. But he believes it's for a patient to decide ultimately what's best for him instead of a doctor.
"When I was baptized in 1995, I gave my life to go with God," Harvey said. "From that point on, whatever he has in store for me, that's what it will be."
-
april fools sites
by messenger inapril fools sites.
:: posted monday, april 01 @ 09:33:41 pst.
it's long been a internet tradition to do something special for april fools day.
-
messenger
April Fools Sites
:: Posted Monday, April 01 @ 09:33:41 PST
It's long been a Internet tradition to do something special for April Fools Day. Here are a few that I've seen so far:.Google (Follow the 'secret behind our pageranking' link)
.Metafilter
.ebay
.Fucked Company -
1
Medicine, religion clash in court
by messenger inhttp://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2970850.htm.
posted on sun, mar.
medicine, religion clash in court.
-
-
messenger
.www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2977207.htm
Posted on Mon, Apr. 01, 2002
Jehovah's witness takes blood fight to state Supreme Court (9:37 AM)COLUMBIA (AP) — A stroke after a 1997 surgery led to a blood transfusion that may have saved Charlie Harvey's life.
But Harvey, a Jehovah's witness embroiled in a legal fight going before the South Carolina Supreme Court on Tuesday, sees it differently.He was horrified to learn that he received the blood transfusion at Lexington Medical Center to unblock the carotid artery in his neck.
"I cried and cried for days," said Harvey, 55 and now a Greensboro, N.C., resident. "That wasn't their decision to make. That decision was Jehovah's — a life belongs to him."
Citing verses in the biblical books of Leviticus and Acts, Harvey said Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "blood is something sacred" and cannot be shared with others. "Life belongs to Jehovah God," said Harvey, who added he was baptized into the faith in 1995. "It should be his right to call what is sacred.
Harvey sued his surgeon, Dr. Glen Strickland, in 1998. He claimed Strickland committed a "medical battery" on him by ordering a blood transfusion and disregarded written wishes.
Harvey said he felt "guilty" when he learned about the transfusion several months later after receiving his medical records. "It tore me up," said Harvey, crying. "My rights were taken away from me. ... I feel like I was raped."
Strickland says in court papers that he ordered the transfusion after Harvey suffered a stroke following the surgery and was in danger of a heart attack. Strickland says Harvey's mother was contacted after Harvey lost consciousness and she gave permission for the transfusion.
"The doctor saved the patient's life," said Strickland's lawyer, Charles Carpenter Jr., in a brief to the Supreme Court.
Strickland's brief says the case is about the "South Carolina law of informed consent for medical treatment," not about the "theological validity of Jehovah's Witnesses' blood view." Carpenter and Strickland would not be interviewed for this story.
In his brief, Harvey said that while his mother was listed as an emergency contact, she wasn't authorized under state law to make decisions on his behalf, especially when he had made his wishes known in writing.
Medical ethics expert Dr. Robert Sade, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Institute of Human Values in Health Care, won't talk about the legal points in Harvey's case. From an ethical standpoint, the patients' rights to determine their treatment outweighs their doctors' wishes, he said.
"If the patient really believes and understands the serious consequences that could result, you shouldn't give blood," he said.
Others have done the same. Doctors at a Rock Hill hospital allowed a mother, a Jehovah's Witness, to die in 1999 after she refused a transfusion following complications from a stillbirth.
Harvey wants the high court to send the case back to the trial judge. "I want justice to be served," Harvey said.
-
1
Medicine, religion clash in court
by messenger inhttp://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2970850.htm.
posted on sun, mar.
medicine, religion clash in court.
-
-
messenger
. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2970850.htm
Posted on Sun, Mar. 31, 2002
Medicine, religion clash in court
Jehovah's Witness pursuing lawsuit against surgeon who gave him blood
By RICK BRUNDRETT
Staff WriterCharlie Harvey is alive today in part because someone else's blood is coursing through his veins, his surgeon says.
But as a devout Jehovah's Witness, Harvey says God has commanded that blood is sacred and cannot be shared. He says he was horrified when he learned he received a blood transfusion after a 1997 surgery at Lexington Medical Center to unclog a blocked carotid artery in his neck.
"I cried and cried for days," said Harvey, 55, when interviewed last week. "That wasn't their decision to make. That decision was Jehovah's - a life belongs to him."
Harvey, a former Columbia resident now living in Greensboro, N.C., sued his surgeon, Dr. Glen Strickland, in 1998, claiming, among other things, that the doctor committed a "medical battery" on him by ordering a blood transfusion. Harvey contends Strickland disregarded his wishes, which he says were clearly spelled out in written forms before the surgery.
But, in a 2000 Richland County trial, a judge sided with Strickland. Harvey appealed to the state Supreme Court, which will hear the case Tuesday. A ruling is expected later.
Strickland could not be reached last week for comment. But, in court papers, he said he ordered the transfusion after Harvey suffered a stroke following the surgery. Because Harvey was unconscious and couldn't speak, Strickland said he went to Harvey's mother, Julia Harvey, the emergency contact listed on Harvey's admission form, who gave permission for the transfusion.
Strickland said the transfusion was needed to prevent a heart attack and also helped Harvey recover faster from the stroke.
"The doctor saved the patient's life," said Strickland's lawyer, Charles Carpenter Jr., in a brief to the Supreme Court. "The doctor would have been wrong to do anything different from what was done."
Carpenter declined to comment when contacted last week.
Strickland's brief says the case is about the "South Carolina law of informed consent for medical treatment," not about the "theological validity of Jehovah's Witnesses' blood view."
However, a medical ethicist questions whether Strickland considered Harvey's religious beliefs seriously enough.
"He does have an obligation not to harm and to do what he can to help the patient, but always with respect to the patient's wishes for self-determination," said Dr. Robert Sade, a surgery professor at the Medical University of South Carolina and director of MUSC's Institute of Human Values in Health Care.
Sade said he has complied when Jehovah's Witness patients requested no transfusions during surgeries.
Others have done the same.
For example, doctors at a Rock Hill hospital allowed a mother, a Jehovah's Witness, to die in 1999 after she refused a transfusion following complications from a stillbirth.
BLOOD - 'SOMETHING SACRED'
A diabetic with high blood pressure, Harvey said he didn't have a death wish when his family doctor referred him to Strickland in late 1996 for carotid artery surgery.
Harvey could have chosen a hospital that specializes in doing surgeries without transfusions. But he said he agreed to allow Strickland to do the operation at Lexington Medical Center after the doctor assured him that the "blood issue would never come about," according to court papers.
Strickland earlier had submitted a signed survey form to the Hospital Liaison Committee, which works on behalf of Jehovah's Witness patients, indicating he was willing to provide treatment to Jehovah's Witnesses without the use of blood products, even in "emergency situations," Harvey said in his brief.
When Harvey was hospitalized in November 1996 for preliminary tests, he signed two forms refusing blood products, and releasing Strickland and Lexington Medical Center from all subsequent claims due to that refusal, court papers show. He made the same requests on two more forms when he was admitted on Jan. 14, 1997, for the surgery.
MUSC's Sade said the signed forms showed a "great seriousness" on Harvey's part, and that it "really weakens, from an ethical point of view, the doctor's argument that he needed to get additional permission."
Citing verses in the biblical books of Leviticus and Acts, Harvey told The State that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "blood is something sacred" and cannot be shared with others.
"Life belongs to Jehovah God," said Harvey, who added he was baptized into the faith in 1995. "It should be his right to call what is sacred. If he says, 'Don't use it,' then don't use it."
Harvey wasn't expecting any serious problems from the surgery; he said he would have been willing to die even if a blood transfusion were needed to save his life. "If it came down to the blood or life, I would let Jehovah handle it," he said.
LIFESAVING MEASURES
The Jan. 15, 1997, surgery "seemed to go very well," Strickland said in his brief to the Supreme Court. But after Harvey was transferred to a recovery room, a nurse noticed he wasn't moving his right arm very well, and more tests were ordered - with permission from Harvey's mother, Julia Harvey, Strickland said.
The tests revealed Harvey, who was unable to speak following the surgery, had suffered a stroke and that another surgery was needed to remove clots from his neck's carotid artery, according to Strickland's brief. Harvey's mother gave permission for the second surgery, which didn't require a blood transfusion, he said.
After the second surgery, Harvey was transferred to intensive care but had trouble breathing throughout the evening and a breathing tube had to be inserted, Strickland said in court papers.
In court papers, Strickland said he became concerned the next day that Harvey was at risk for a heart attack because his heart rate was too high. Harvey also had lost about 30 percent of his blood during the two surgeries and from post-operative bleeding.
To correct those problems, Strickland decided a blood transfusion was needed. Harvey's mother initially refused, citing her son's religious beliefs, according to Harvey's brief. But after being alone with her son for about 15 minutes, Julia Harvey agreed to the procedure. Her son was given two units of packed red blood cells, Strickland said, noting "the effect of this was to immediately slow down the heart rate."
"As a result, Harvey not only was saved from a heart attack, but he had a profound recovery from a bad stroke," Strickland said in his brief.
Citing a 1984 state Supreme Court case, Strickland said he was required to seek permission from Harvey's mother for any treatments after Harvey was unable to speak for himself. But in his brief, Harvey said that while his mother was listed as an emergency contact, she wasn't authorized under state law to make decisions on his behalf, especially when he had made his wishes known in writing.
Sade, of MUSC, said he can't answer the questions of law in Harvey's case. But, from an ethical standpoint, he believes patients' rights to determine their treatment outweigh their doctors' wishes.
"I'm not saying (Strickland) did the wrong thing - it's a difficult balancing act," Sade said. "I put a great deal of weight that you really need to pay attention to what the patient says. If the patient really believes and understands the serious consequences that could result, you shouldn't give blood (transfusions)."
SEEKING JUSTICE
Citing earlier court testimony from a Jehovah's Witness elder, Strickland said in his brief that Harvey hadn't "sinned in the eyes of the church" by receiving the transfusion because he was unconscious and didn't consent to it. But Harvey told The State he felt "guilty" when he learned about the transfusion several months later after receiving his medical records.
"It tore me up," said Harvey, crying. "My rights were taken away from me. .‘.‘. I feel like I was raped."
Harvey sued Strickland, his medical practice and Lexington Medical Center in July 1998, claiming "medical battery, breach of express agreement, lack of informed consent and medical malpractice." The medical center later was dropped as a defendant.
All of Harvey's remaining claims were dismissed by Circuit Court Judge Henry McKellar in a Richland County jury trial in October 2000. McKellar decided on the malpractice and battery claims after a jury deadlocked, according to court papers. Harvey claimed the judge violated his right to a jury trial in his appeals brief.
These days, Harvey said he is drawing about $15,000 a year in disability payments, adding he no longer can use his right hand and walks with a limp. As a skilled tradesman who reconditioned machine tools, he said he made as much as $80,000-$90,000 a year.
Harvey said he's not seeking a specific damage amount in his lawsuit. He is asking the Supreme Court to send the case back to the lower court for trial.
"I want justice to be served," Harvey said. "I want him (Strickland) to know he can't just do this and get away with it."
-
15
Personal Experience
by Joe Nigma inmy experience.
read, enjoy.. i grew up in another religion.
i believed in everything i heard.
-
-
messenger
Another hit and run troll, Brother Joe is long gone creating another "accident" in another forum. Hey Joe, don't you know it is a crime to leave the scene of an accident??
I have a good mind to report him to the authorities.
You have to admit though, the part of being the first into disaster areas and helping everyone has to rank with the high end of the stupidity factor. AH YES! the great charity work of WT....Not to mention how they never let anyone know what they are doing, (anyone read the WTC AWAKE?), this guy is entertaining to say the least, a brain dead moron at the most.