by AndersonsInfo 1093 Replies latest watchtower scandals


    In cases where a Jehovah's Witness did not know they were lie to about the risks until AFTER a tragedy associated to it has occurred, they may properly claim that had the support from the medical facts not been a factor in the indoctrination they may have decided differently, or even would have decided differently.

    AS---A JW didn't know it was a lie until AFTER a tragedy--death, then how would you ever prove the point? Do you see my point? It's hard to say something after you are dead! It would be almost impossible for a mate to say what their JW mate believed if he/she had died. Most JW's sign a consent form and or have legal medical documents stating what they want done in case of an emergency.

    Trust me, I do understand the point the essay is making!!!! I just see the side the WTS has also, and it's awfully hard to argue with GOD!

    I would love to see an attorney take this on and argue it in court and see what the outcome would be...


  • AuldSoul


    "Tragedy" does not have to mean the death of the one who would sue, it could also be the death of a child or mate. Not only is it easy to see how the argument could be made in court by a bereaved parent or spouse, it is easy to see how it would become a media circus (lawyers love those), a very emotionally charged issue (see recent history: Terri Schiavo), something that will create widespread debate and investigation by the public and bloggers (see recent history: Terri Schiavo), and will create a frenzy of attorneys looking for a way to get in on the action.

    If this happens (and I believe it will) what will happen to public perception of Jehovah's Witnesses? Will they begin to view the religion as a potentially mortal danger, more so than currently? Will many become better educated about the blood issue and reason more effectively with witnesses at the door regarding issues of what constitutes "eating blood"? Will this be coffee table conversation?

    You better believe it.

    Consider Schiavo. How many people who never consider right to die issues suddenly had to have an opinion of some kind to fit into the conversations at work, in diners and restaurants, at pool halls, bowling alleys, on cruise ships, at department stores. If they came off sounding like they knew nothing of the issues, their opinion would be discounted, they had to study. They had to become personally involved in a matter that did not concern them three weeks prior just to fit in to discussions. They had to know what they were talking about.

    Whether the cases are won or lost will not change the damage done. At worst, a worldwide innoculation against new converts via CNN. At best, bankrupting the Society. The child abuse scandal didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming as big as this without a direct line to the top of the organization. The public doesn't care about Jehovah's Witnesses, but they soon will. Start typing up your "tell all," it will be on store shelves soon.

    We are about to become the latest fad.



    With all due respect SWalker, the Society are the ones who misrepresent facts. The Blood booklet is rife with quotes taken out of context and misapplied in ways they were not originally intended.

    Big Tex...I totally agree that they misrepresent facts. But by stating that this is a religious issue they are covering their A$$es!!! Whether or not that can be challenged in court is yet to be seen. But as I keep saying, the news media does this on a daily basis. They take partial quotes, statements out of context, etc. and what if this caused someone harm? (Which I'm sure it has!) The point is that misrepresentation would have to apply to other organizations as well for the damage that they do to also. IMO there would have to be a whole culture adjustment to allow for new law on this issue. Anything is possible....


  • AuldSoul

    Precedent already on the books allows for compelling state interests to override protection of press or religion on this issue. There is never an absolute application of the First Amendment. The key is, not every misrepresentation creates a compelling interest for the state to intervene. Death of its citizens may very well be seen to create such an interest.


  • Gerard
    No one disputes that the stand is a religious stand. Her paper, which I am not sure you have read, admits that at the outset. However, it narrows the legal focus to one of misrepresentations of medical facts IN SUPPORT of that stand. That is what you have failed to pick up on, despite its being stated repeatedly. > AuldSoul

    I understand the point of the essay and yours, but at the moment that a religion filters medical "facts" -whether they are correct or not - through through their religious doctrine, through religious philosophy and through their religious interpretation, it becomes a theological issue and therefore untouchable by a court of law.

    I believe the WT has lied, yes. But each JW that signs their no-blood card does it for religious purposes, not to receive "qualified" medical advice. How many mundane (non-believer) people do you think came a cross a WT rag and used it as the sole source of medical advice for blood rejection, overriding his/her own doctor's recommendations?

    The idea is arguable in court, yes, ANYTHING is arguable; And I bet that given the chance, it will shine all of its 5 minutes before being dismissed.

    Again, I hope I am proven very wrong. I do. And I stand on the sidelines to help in anyway I can.

  • AuldSoul

    That's the point, Gerard. These misrepresentations aren't filtered through anything. If they were, it would not convince some unbelieving mates, who are impervious to the religious aspect, or impartial family court judges who are likewise impervious to the religious argument.

    The Society could not achieve its objective with the Blood brochure if it filtered the misrepresentations through religious belief.


  • Gerard

    NIcely stated AuldSoul. I understand that, and still think it is like milking a wet stone.
    The moment you separate the religion aspect, you will loose the weight of the JWs that have died under this religious policy and all possibilities of relevant lawsuits; and all you are left with is with a weak claim that the WT should not write about medicine.

    Now, do you think any court of law would try to regulate (if they could) which secular facts should the JW's religion should adopt or even write about?

  • AuldSoul
    Do you think any court of law would try to regulate (if they could) which secular facts should the JW's religion should adopt or even write about?

    No, Gerard. I don't.

    I think the states can and have stipulated whether those secular facts MUST be accurate to the best of the publisher/religion's knowledge. States have also already provided recourse in law for occasions when misrepresentation of secular facts provides a compelling state interest in hearing a case.

    States have already determined that narrowly focused consideration of Misrepresentation may be indicated as a means of protecting citizens from harm caused by religious abuse of fiduciary relationships in communicating secular information. Wrongful death resultant from misrepresented facts (deliberate dissemination of erroneous information with recklessness) would easily meet that margin.

    I'm not sure if you read the paper yet, but it quickly begs consideration in a VERY narrow focus, stipulating at the outset that the law and precedent only allow for narrow consideration of specific secular facts. I can easily see attorneys pursuing it, I can easily see courts hearing it, I can easily see juries awarding damages based on it.

    Especially in cases of unbelieving mates, etc. But every case won on that basis will provide more opportunity for a win where the victim who is harmed (but not killed) is a Witness or the one who decided for now deceased spouse or child is a Witness.


  • Oroborus21


    being uncertain about which of the myriad of threads to place this into, i decided to go with the original. I expect to post my analysis of the JCS article tonight, I was up very late last night writing most of it. In the mean time I wanted to share the following which may be of interest to most of you.

    I have contacted and been in dialogue with Ford Greene and shared the article with him. Mr. Greene has agreed to provide me with his comments on the article.

    So that you do not think that I have tried to poison the well this is my original email to him:

    My name is Eduardo Leaton Jr. I am currently in a discussion regarding
    the merits of a recently published essay in the Journal of Church and
    State, published by Baylor University.

    The article, which I have attached in the event that you care to look at
    it relies heavily on the Molko case which I understand to be your case.

    The article's contention is that the tort of misrepresentation may be
    used, based upon a reading of Molko, to litigate against the Watchtower
    Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses).

    If you have a moment, I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer
    the following two questions.

    1. Why does it appear that the Molko case has not been followed with
    regard to misrepresentation claims?

    2. Would you consider the Journal of Church and State, published by
    Baylor to be an authoritative journal in your field?

    If you have a moment to browse the article and have any comments, I
    would greatly enjoy hearing them.

    Thank you sincerely and keep up the good work.

    -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

    PS: I have grown to respect Margaret Singer through her writings. Did
    you work with her personally as a member of the board of FACTnet and do
    you have any personal reflections about her? How would you sum up her
    contributions in the field? --------

    Who is Ford Greene? Mr. Greene was the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Molko case (which is relied upon heavily by the JCS article), he has successfully litigated against the Church of Scientology and sits on the board of FACTnet. If there is a preeminent expert, who is also an active litigator, in the field of tort law against religious groups, especially "cults," this is THE GUY!

    I would consider his comments regarding the article and his take on the whole issue, as extremely valuable if not definitive.

    With his permission I will share his comments with the board when I receive them. Please stay tuned.

    -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

  • jeanniebeanz

    That is very interesting! I look forward to hearing what this gentleman has to say.

    Thank you.


Share this