Oroborus21

Joined

• started 85 topics
• posted 1,322 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Oroborus21

• 
  103

  REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

  by Oroborus21 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  AS:

  You continue to show an amazing amount of lack of perception.

  First the Church of Scientoloy is different than Christian Scientists. look it up. Christian Scientists have a well founded and known belief system that is rejecting of much of medicine - hence the reference. The example is appropo as just as Christian Scientists say don't use this medicine, Witnesses say don't use blood. there may be secular evidence put forth but both are primarily faith based positions.

  Second, I did answer your questions. It is about the RELATIONSHIP pure and simple. If someone anywhere in the world gives misleading or even deliberately false information such lies or deception is not legally actionable (no matter the form) unless there is some relationship between the parties and some rational basis that the receiver would have to believe the speaker and reliance upon what was said/written/printed resulted in harm. (these are the basic elements involved).

  No one could be deemed justified for relying upon the mistatements of law or medicine when the person identified that they were neither a lawyer or a doctor.

  Its common sense written into the law. Shocking i know.

  The person speaking might be punished for practicing law or medicine w/o a license but that is a totally different thing.

  Likewise a lawyer (doctor, mechanic, you) may opine on the law ad nauseum without fear and doesn't even need to be corrrect. It is only when there is a relationship or the semblance of one that she may need to be cautious or when it would be reasonable that a person would actually act upon what was said.

  As to the points of form of communication, you have completely missed the point (again) that this was in reference to the tort of misrepresentation, the point of our discussion. The law deals with forms of communication in other things, for example the difference between slander and libel, but when it comes to the tort of M, the form of the relied upon statement(s) is not germane.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
• 
  103

  REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

  by Oroborus21 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  AS:

  The issue in discussion is the relationship between the parties. This should be a simple concept. Christian Scientists or whoever could publish a pamphlet saying that all medicine is evil and to be rejected.

  Am I justified in relying upon such? Of course not. I have no relationship to the publishers.

  You seem to be hung up on the fact that things are published acting as though this somehow magically makes it special but the law doesn't make a distinction in this area. Oral and written statements are treated the same for purposes of investigating whether they are fraudulent, whether there is a reasonable basis that the receiver would have to act upon such statements, and whether harmed thus occurred. Pure and simple.

  Rather than endlessly debate in the forum and continue to display your lack of understanding basic concepts, since you feel so strongly that you have been deceived by the WT (as your poll answer indicated) then by all means try and bring it to court.

  I certainly don't recommend doing that since you will without a doubt lose and probably be on the hook for attorney's fees, etc. But at least that would be putting your money where your mouth is.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

  (of the fatigued by ignorance class)
• 
  46

  What's the key to regular sex in a long-term relationship?

  by happysunshine in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  well?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  That's easy. Just have several long-term relationships.

  -Eduardo
• 
  103

  REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

  by Oroborus21 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  AuldSoul,

  Setting all of the other problems aside for sake of discussion, an unbelieving mate would probably not have standing to sue on a misrepresentation claim since they would have difficulty establishing the fiduciary relationship that is a prerequisite.

  A person can hardly justifiably rely upon statements made by a stranger. And since there is no duty upon the one making the statement to be truthful (as is imposed by the law in commercial and other situations) the one making the statement may lie.

  Much of the argument in support of the theory of suing the WT has been that Witnesses trust the Society, with the implication that despite all of the intervening access to information including from one's own doctor that a Witness will fail to listen to the counsel to accept blood because of their faith.

  In the case of unbelieving mate no reasonable person could justify why they were "fooled" by statements made by a party which they have no relationship with and which they have by their own choices refused to believe. Everyone would consider it that it was their own fault for believing in medical statements made by some church in which they are not a member - and indeed it would be.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

  Peer review doesn't end when something is published, that's when it really begins.
• 
  103

  REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

  by Oroborus21 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  
  KM:

  Well Dorothy didn't fare too badly in the end anyway...

  I think however that your experience bears distinguishing. I can't imagine that the Society would want to charge in with a bunch of lawyers in types of cases that you have handled because of appearances sake. It certainly wouldn't look good and would definitely play right into the media's hands. I suspect that with abuse cases the Society takes about the same approach as it does with child custody and family law situations which is fairly hands off and at most (unofficially) advisory to the defendant. (But I would love to hear privately from you just what the response has been in your cases.)

  When it comes to challenges that directly attack its constitutional rights or the beliefs however, the track record has been that it throws its full weight behind defending or asserting its rights.

  My statement is not in any way meant to dissuade someone from taking up the fight or going to court. I am more Quixotic than most and don't mind a challenge myself. But my comments are more along the lines of the bible's counsel to "count the cost" first.

  Doogie: next time I will let you write that portion. You summarized the main point of distinction between Molko and the situation implied in the essay that I made, but you did in a fraction of the space. I bow to your succinctness.

  -Eduardo
• 
  103

  REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

  by Oroborus21 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  AuldSoul,

  Thanks again for your advice. It is so nice to know how concerned you are for my license and for me. I really had you all wrong.

  -Eduardo
• 
  37

  Campaign to destroy "lol"

  by ballistic in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm not sure where this idea came from, but apparently it's been discovered that hardly anyone is actually "laughing out loud" when using the term "lol".

  lol if they really are laughing out loud, there is something wrong with them (they could be retarded or have a bad sense of humor lol).

  please show your support for my new cause in which i attempt to bannish the term lol from the english language.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  thanks cheesy,..I thought maybe it was the sound one makes when they are pressing their tongue against their teeth and making that spittting/hissing sound of disapproval.

  So when one writes BTTT are they requesting that the action be done or are they explaining their post?

  -Ed
• 
  8

  Poll regarding Blood Issue

  by SWALKER in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  1st question...

  was the medical information:.

  a) highly influential.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  
  I'll play.

  1. Not influential, on either my choice to refuse blood or becoming a Witness

  2. I never put much stock in the medical claims of the society. I thought that there might be risks and they were not wrong about there being some risks, but I did not know the real risks and so I put more stock in what the medical facts indicated that a blood transfusion would be helpful or possibly save my life. Still due to the religious belief (I held at the time) I would have been willing to die and refuse a transfusion.
• 
  20

  Eduardo: Is 1990 Blood pamphlet "old light"?

  by sf in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  hello eduardo,.

  i just read your analysis thread.

  in it you made this statement:jws dont really use the blood brochure in field service (despite it being on the website), and given that it is at least 16 years old, it is probably due for a revision or replacement.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  Howdy SF:

  In my list of WT Publications (http://www.jehovahs-witnesses.net/wtpublications.html) I have changed my designation from "Current Light" to "Fading Light" after considering the problems that were pointed out in the JCS article** and because in re-reading it for my analysis of that essay, I revisited the material for the first-time again in probably 6 or 7 years.

  It wasn't a publication that I ever emphasized or even used while I was an active publisher.

  I think the posting on the website is really for lack of a better published article. It is probably a place holder for the topic until the next version comes out. I can't imagine that the Society doesn't already have plans to publish a new replacement since this one was published so long ago and itself contains a lot of outdated content when in the last 10 years there have been positive developments in non-blood management and oher developments which it will see as beneficial to supporting its RELIGIOUS belief that blood is unscriptural and not the best course of medicine.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

  **Note: although, the author correctly identified several misquotations or misapplications of quotations, etc. she also incorrectly understood at least one point which she asserted as "major" (re Priestley) and included at least 2 sloppy misrepresentations of the brochure itself in her essay.
• 
  37

  Campaign to destroy "lol"

  by ballistic in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm not sure where this idea came from, but apparently it's been discovered that hardly anyone is actually "laughing out loud" when using the term "lol".

  lol if they really are laughing out loud, there is something wrong with them (they could be retarded or have a bad sense of humor lol).

  please show your support for my new cause in which i attempt to bannish the term lol from the english language.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Oroborus21

  What do you have against Little Old Ladies?

  I still don't know what bttt means.

  -Eduardo