Posts by Oroborus21

17

Question About Matthew 13:24

by lynnmelo in

jw
friends

as some of you may know (from my previous posts), i'm studying with the jw's (& have been for 2 years) but have decided not to be baptized after reading some of the information and links from this site.

however, i am supposed to be having one last book study to finish the worship the one true god book.

when i do this study, i'm considering being upfront with my bible study conductor, telling her some of my reasons for deciding not to become a jw.

Oroborus21

lynnmelo,

Would you be interested in reading a paper I have written on the FDS doctrine? If so PM me with your email and I will be happy to send it to you.

-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

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:.

Oroborus21

Greetings:

AuldSoul: I just wanted to let you know that the reason I use the Esq. from time to time is because I was advised to by another well-known lawyer since I am a solo-attorney. It lets people know that should they have a legal question or issue they may approach me. If they are in California then I can advise them and if not I can give them information and tell them to see someone locally. Use of the Esq. is not in any way unethical. And certainly it is not practicing outside of the jurisdiction anymore than a doctor who uses Mr. Smith, M.D. is practicing medicine outside of the state where she is licensed by simply discussing general principles of medicine or standards of care, etc.

Likewise, I don't use the "disclaimer" all of the time nor is it necessary. Some lawyers do for safety's sake. In posts where it seems to me obvious that I am not giving legal advice I do not provide it. With Marvin's question, I was unsure if he might have been asking his question because he has a situation himself and was asking for legal advise so I deemed it prudent to use a disclaimer in my answer to his question.

All of my posts that touch upon legal issues such as the one at hand are based on my opinion in discussion of general legal principles or as in the case at hand, my interpretation of California law and its applicabilty or rather inapplicability elsewhere. As such this does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship or a reasonable expectation that my advice could be relied upon for legal action in a person's specific situation with anyone.

If you think participating in a forum is enough to get a lawyer disbarred in California you really don't understand what is required.

Cognitive-D: This is just your bad timing that you have to read so much of my hot-air (actually no one is making you read it all!) You may note that even though I have been a forum participant for years, my number of actual posts is quite modest. I would not consider myself a major player in this forum and I rarely post anything other than a quip here and there or a quick two-cents worth of opinion. This topic just happened to be blown up to be so important and then it turned out to be something related to my field, that I had more to say than usual.

I really don't have more to say than the opinion I have already expressed and the analysis that I have already performed, so if anyone has specific questoins that they don't think others will care about it would be better to pm me as I am sure the forum is tired of not only hearing me but also fatigued with this topic and irked that my darn post keeps popping to the top.

Ballistic: Thanks! I will try that in the future.

Marvin: First very interesting points on page three of the thread. With regard to your questions perhaps we should exchange email since I am not sure that the forum is interested and also I need to know if you are asking about these things theoretically or for some other reason. PM me.

TD: It is a fascinating consideration, that is the separating of the secularity from the belief. Whether it can be done bears discussing. I wished there would have more of this in the essay itself. I don't think it can be done with respect to the Society's literature, but I could be wrong. showing just how it could be done is what someone needs to do. Just saying that it is secular doesn't do it and probably wouldn't convince in a courtroom. And I am not convinced that even if such statements were deemed as secular that it would win the case for all of the reasons that I go into already.

Enigma: Just a point of order, it is likely that if filed in state court the Society would at least try to have it removed to federal court on the basis of the constitutional issues raised. In so doing they may believe that federal law will work better for them and doing such also makes it more expensive for the plaintiff.

Finally, with regard to this latest bit of discussion on the thread, would someone create a new thread taking a poll of whether the medical information was : highly influential, modestly influential, not influential in 1) either actually or prospectively choosing to refuse blood - in its prohibited forms and 2) choosing to become a witness

And also ask a second question along the lines of who was really fooled by the Society's medical statements re:Blood. I for one was never fooled and always realized that the rest of the world were not idiots. Blood transfusions and so on may have some risks and concerns but they work and are useful, I think even Jehovah's Witnesses understand that, at least most Witness I know do. Maybe there are some really naive persons out there and plenty of stupid ones that disregard the facts but I haven't encountered many. All Witnesses that I know who say that they would not accept a blood transfusion do so as a matter of their faith not as a matter of medicine.

-Eduardo Leaton Jr, Esq.

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:.

Oroborus21

Yeah CD,

well that's not the half of it. I didn't even get into any potential counter-claims or even the possibility that the Society would be able to use Califronia's Anti-SLAPP laws against any parties wishing to abridge its free speech activities.

Get a load of this:

California Code of Civil Procedure

Sec. 425.16. Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech -- Special Motion to Strike.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.

(b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.

(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

(3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.

(c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.

(d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.

(e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

(f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.

(g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.

(h) For purposes of this section, "complaint" includes "cross-complaint" and "petition," "plaintiff" includes "cross-complainant" and "petitioner," and "defendant" includes "cross-defendant" and "respondent."

(i) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable under Section 904.1.

(j) (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees. (2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other appropriate electronic media.

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:.

Oroborus21

Marvin,

The answer to your question would depend upon the circumstances of course. A relgious organization that is operating a hospital for example might be held liable for misrepresentations within its hospital publications if the statements or the making of the statements are not contrued by the court to be religious but purely secular or in the least only "religiously motivated".

A religious organization that publishes a medical related publication that has nothing to do with its beliefs may also be found to be liable (but it woudl be an extremely difficult case.)

A religious organization that publishes a medical related publication that is integral to its belief-system is not going to be found liable.

What people consistently fail to appreciate is that religions do not have to tell the truth or provide factual information, even on secular matters IF they are part of the religion.

In Molko the statements which induced the plaintiffs to go to the indoctrination estate where they were subjected to days of "thought-control" were deemed by the trial court, the appelate court and the supreme court's dissenter as religious and part of the indoctrination because of the Moonies' belief in "heavenly deception." But the majority of the supreme court, disagreed and decided that these "pre-statements" which included lying about who they were, and what the purpose of the visit to the estate/farm would be were deliberate lies aka misrepresentation. The Molko case was won as to this part of the case because the court found that these advance statements were not religious and yet, the court still had to do a full constitutional analysis and insure that allowing the tort claim would be the least restrictive alternative and not solely burden the Moonies.

Virtually any time that a religion or religious organization is implicated in the proceedings there is going to be a constitutional analysis.

The bottom line problem for anyone wishing to challenge the blood doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is that it is a belief (currently) and such things as Witnessing at the door or via the Literature are considered to be part of the indoctrination process. the essay even calls the blood brochure "indoctrinating literature."

Because of this and any time that a religion is speaking about its faith, it is not required to speak the truth, even if it is speaking about secular issues. So long as it is part of its faith they are safe.

I did not feel that another full discussion of the tort of misrepresentation was necessary, I think after this most people don't even want to hear about this topic anymore :-) so I only went into it in my post as little as necessary. But I have said before that scienter- the knowledge that what is being said is untrue, and which is part of the elements of the fraud tort, is a big problem when it comes to the Society because they will certainly assert either that they sincerely believe what has been written or said to be true, or that they were unaware that it was false. Proving otherwise is near impossible.

-Eduardo

PS: guys, Please understand that none of my posts are to be construed as legal advice. As a lawyer participating in a public forum, it is prudent for me to give this disclaimer when there is a potential that persons may not be mistaken into acting upon such in the event they have circumstances similar to the topic at hand. You should always consult a local attorney when you need help with your legal problems.

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:.

Oroborus21

Skeeter, it is clear that you have not read my post/analysis closely or have not appreciated the subtleties of law. Molko is clearly distinguishable for a number of reasons which I illustrate in the post. I also point out that the essay did not mention that Molko is a California Supreme Court case (denied federal cert I believe) and thus is only of limited value as precedent. You may have further failed to realize that I have contacted the lead counsel of the Molko case, Mr. Ford Greene, and am awaiting his own comments regarding the essay in question.

Good day,

Eduardo

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:.

Oroborus21

Hi, I am having trouble posting this..for some reason the rest of this paragraph keeps getting truncated at the word "or" as was the case in the original post. I have been unable to correct it with the edit feature.

The paragraph from the "buildup issues" section in full should read:

In my opinion, stating that a new article would soon be released concernng the blood doctrine would have preserved both the "surprise" and any agreements she may have had with the author or Baylor University not to disclose anything before the publication was available. This latter thought is only speculative as Ms. Anderson has not yet attempted to explain either the reason for the way she conduced the pre-annoncement or disclosed that she was contrained in some way from simply relating the news. Others have attempted to reconcile the picture for her, theorizing tha perhaps the Society could have sought to stop the article's publication or that it was somehow necessary to the aftermath and distribution of the article. Both of these lines are specious as the article is not important and couldn't be prevented from publication under law and the distribution of the article's contents is something which is not readily discernable -- not too mention that given the claims of the article it bears considerable deliberation before running with it to our friends and neighbors.

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:.

Oroborus21

49

Picture Change in the Live Forever Book

by LDH in

jw
friends

does anyone remember when the picture of the married couple was changed in the live forever book?.

it was the chapter on marriage, and there was this one picture of a hottie basically posing in a provocative picture on the bed, hair askew, beckoning her husband to join her.

she was going to render her due.

Oroborus21

Gill, someone's been reading the Kama Sutra. and actually looking at it sideways it seems like it could be "69" - Eduardo

oh by the way my first post was joke, told you no one gets my sense of humour. Really it is ram's head in profile. big whoop. Now if it were a GOAT HEAD then the nuts would be out on it.

And it isn't subliminal! It's obvious.

-ed

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.

Oroborus21

Gary1914,

Thanks for the info. I am interested in the phenomenon. My supposition was only that. Others have reported that the event was treated as a shameful one while yours indicates that it was viewed positively.

Can you tell whether you know if the example of the deaths in your congregation was touted elsewhere in your circuit or locality?

I think it is important to investigate just how the reaction propagates within the community/JWs and why some cases are viewed negatively and some are viewed positively.

I wonder if cultural or racial factors are involved or geographic factors.

It seems that if Witnesses really believe that the death of someone adhering to the blood doctrine was honorable that it would be a tendency to be treated positively - similar perhaps to persecution examples in the oral history and literature.

But it is surprising to see that the majority of cases are kept private and perhaps even "covered". This might be out of respect for the family and individuals or it could be a subconscious reflex which indicates that the persons inwardly reject the doctrine even if outwardly they manifest acceptance.

Making a post here on JWD dedicated to tabulating stories and statistics, locations, etc. would be useful in helping all of us to build some data, perhaps more accurately than mere statistical modeling based on inferences that aren't ground in anything.

One of my theories is that a person who has been touched personally either through direct loss of a family member or via a close friend is more likely to have left the Organization, perhaps not because of the blood doctrine but as a contributory factor. Thus since this forum is a gravitational point for ex-members, I would expect a higher concentration of reported cases here on JWD than if we were able to just conduct a sampling of all active Witnesses.

Still even with this potential flaw building a record wouldn't hurt.

There is also another important reason why it would be a good idea and that is not too forget the victims of this terrible doctrine. A "Memorial" website would serve these purposes and also perhaps garner some media attention to the issue. And of course touching persons wiht a real face and name is one of the best ways to make an impact on active Witnesses.

Of course there are privacy concerns and these would have to be addressed.

I saw one poster mention that he would like to see a doctor's certification that a blood transfusion would have saved these people's lives.

I don't actually see that as relevant in the big picture. First such an opinion would only be speculative, as whether a blood transfusion would have saved the person or not is really an X factor, though it would be more likely than no treatment right.

I think that a modest disclaimer on the site or post along these lines would suffice: "it is not known for certain whether a blood transfusion would have saved the person's life but given that the field of medicine agrees that the administration of blood as appropriate is the standard of care, it is more likely than not that the person's condition would have been positively affected by the adminstration of blood."

-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

PS: CBehind. I think you have misunderstood my feelings. There would need to be many more changes than just the blood policy to lure me back. I hope that these changes will occur because I do believe and accept certain teachings and I appreciate certain facets of the culture. I also have family and friends who are Witnesses and would appreciate being in communion with them again.

Whether the changes that I hope for and am workng for will occur in my life time I don't know. But I believe that they will and that these changes are inf fact inevitable if the Organization and religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is to survive into the later half of this century.

Yes, in this sense I may be different than many on this board who only desire the complete destruction of the religion.

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:.

Oroborus21

PS guys, what i feared the formatting is funky. I suggest that you copy and paste it into a word doc or wordprocessing, and blow it up so that you can read it.

-Eduardo