Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Auld....LOL. You're amusing to say the least.

    Again you bring up Oronbus. I simply asked what YOUR qualifications are. Basically you are telling me you've watched a lot of CSI, LA LAW reruns, and read detective novels. LOL.

    I looked at your posting've made about 50 or more posts on this "big news" pontificating away on how this is going to change the world. While you dismiss having "titles" at the end of one's name, you need those "titles" to actually practice law. You know....something Oronbus has and you do not, therefore, his LEGAL opinion carries weight whereas your's are worthless. You can type away until you are blue in the face....which given the length of your rants....I assume is close to the truth right now. So all your "certainty" in law as you have been yammering away on, is all for naught. Mental masturbation of a musing ex-JW. So all your rants mean NOTHING. NOTHING has changed. Get back to me when it has, and THEN we'll discuss how BIG this news is. Hey Auld....pssst.....let's leave the law to those who actually can practise. LOL.

    What time is it? Isn't CSI Miami on soon?

  • katiekitten

    I was brought up on 'Rumpole of the Old Bailey' and 'Crown Court' so I KNOW what im talking about! (not your light weight US cop shows - tee hee)

  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Kattie....OH! Well you should have said that. I bow to your superior court skills. LOL

    I could never get into Perry and white thanks.

    Miami Vice there's a cop show!

  • AuldSoul

    Actually, oh legal wit of our times, I am not saying anything more than I have said. Read into my comments what you will, then watch what happens when time proves me right.

    Now, I ask again: What issue did you OR Eduardo take with my correction of his flawed legal interpretation regarding what the expression "with recklessness" means? I add, the statute in most states reads "with reckless disregard," so he likely misquoted even his own state's definition. He then proceeded to argue exactly the major thesis of this opinion, but related it to the lemon law.

    He says tort of misrepresentation has to do only with economics, but he is wrong. Oh, so very wrong. I can't even begin to imagine what would make him think he knows that to be true. Likely by now, he has discovered that his opinion regarding application of tort of misrepresentation was far too narrow to be anywhere near in keeping with precedent. I wonder where his full treatment and "destruction" of the legal validity of this opinion will appear? I hope he writes to Baylor, to elucidate the flaws for their fuzzy-brained reviewers. That would be funny.

    Did you have some grievance with what I have stated about this matter, or do you just have a personal beef with the fact that I voluminously disagree with your viewpoint? Well?

    Does it trouble you that I have personal arguments, that I come up with on my own? I don't kowtow to the WT view of themselves as invincible, the way Eduardo does. Maybe that's what troubles you. I really don't care what you believe about my "credentials." Whatever you choose believe about that comes from your own brain.

    I will say this, there is nothing in what I have written that would lead someone to believe I do not know what I'm talking about. If you disagree, I will be happy to discuss tat with you, but my understanding is that this is a discussion forum that welcomes opinions that do not address character issues in an attempt to garner details about a person's offline life.

    I will warn you once, but if you attempt to assault my character or the value of my opinion again in a vain attempt to get what you have repeatedly asked for (a detail of my private life), I will report you to the forum moderators. I do not take kindly to attempts to coerce revelations about my private life. That Eduardo does not mind revealing details of his life is Eduardo's choice. I am free to make mine. Are we clear?


  • magoo

    ................boys,boys, nice or don't play


  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Your voluminous post only proves my point. You are talking out of your piehole. LOL

    You apparently are under the false assumption that the more you type on this subject the more it means. Your typing means nothing. You are not a lawyer. Get it? Do I have to draw you a picture? Silly boy. There have been 3 lawyers that have have made some comments. None of them uber favorable. I also have noticed a lack of any replies from our resident doctors on this board....I believe we have 2 or 3 on here. Let me 'splain it to you Auld....these are the folks it matters to. Not you. Not me. You know, professionals. Lawyers, doctors, hospital know.....those guys / gals that have "titles" behind their names. You seem upset that you don't have those "titles" behind your name, perhaps you should have gone to college my dear boy.

    "When time proves you right". Oh my, you do have a persecution / god complex don't you? By the way, you may want to edit out that last paragraph.....makes you look mentally unstable. Do you see dead people?

  • AuldSoul

    Enigma One, you naivety is touching. There have been six lawyers (that I know of) who have given their opinions in this informal discussion forum. Two have identified themselves as lawyers. A third lawyer identified herself but did not give an opinion, uber-postive or otherwise.

    Now, do you really think that everyone who is an attorney MUST (as some perceived ethical duty) reveal that fact any and every time someone asks in any setting?

    On an informal discussion forum, my opinions are as valid as anyone's, no matter what letters they claim to have behind their name. It is a level playing field. If someone came in here calling themselves President, whether I believed them or not I would treat them as an equal.

    A thought you might consider, Enigma One: What if I am a judge?


  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Judgemental - yes.
    Judge - no.

  • Leolaia

    The blood issue has broad interest in the media....just today, Tibor R. Machan, a professor of philosophy, wrote the following in a political column:

    "Jehovah Witnesses are often very nice people, certainly well mannered and often dressed spiffily. But their idea on the merits of blood transfusions is really, really perverse, like the ideas of Christian Scientists on seeking the help of physicians when one’s body is ailing. I am sorry but this is just so. Sure, so long as it pertains to them and they aren’t forcing their views on anyone else, I can live with both, although when either of them inflicts these views on their own children, I get very worried. Children are dependents, not yet of age so as to figure out what’s best, and when they are subjected to parents’ peculiar religious or any other sort of notions, especially ones that can kill them, it’s time to call in the trial lawyers, I say. They are injuring, even killing kids, with ideas the kids never had a chance to consider and decide about."

    Now, I don't agree with his broader political points about oil, but this guy should definitely hear about the JC&S article!

  • bennyk

    Disclaimer: I am not a practicing attorney, nor do I play one on TV.

    It is my understanding that the following are true:

    The Supreme Court has never held that religious liberty granted under the First Amendment be absolute: e.g. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) "[L]aws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may interfere with practice." Id. at 166.

    While the WTS would seek relief under provision of the Sherbert test (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 [1963]) i.e. "compelling state interest", the protections afforded under it (even as more widely defined under Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 [1972]), have been severely eroded since 1982. In United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982), the Supreme Court noted the Yoder decision, but created a significant limitation on that decision.

    In Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), the Court did not even apply the Yoder test; Goldman's religious claim was denied.

    In Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), very limited use was made of Yoder. Yoder 's very broad ruling in favour of religious freedom was closely qualified; note also the statement: "[T]he government is entitled to wide latitude" (Roy at 707).

    Another significant departure from Yoder is illustrated by Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n., 485 U.S. 439 (1988). This decision indicated that the state need not prove a "compelling state interest" (Sherbert) to justify its actions.

    The decision in Employment Div., Dep't of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) likewise refused to apply the Sherbert test.

    In Minnesota v. Hershberger, 110 U.S. 1918 (1990)(mem), the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Minnesota Supreme Court judgement in State v. Hershberger, 444 N.W.2d 282 (1989), and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Smith.

    Note that when the Minnesota Supreme Court supported the contention of the Schwartzentruber Amish Church in the post-Smith decision in State v. Hershberger (Hershberger II), 462 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1990), they simply avoided the limitations imposed by Smith by having recourse to the broad provision "liberty of conscience" found in the Minnesota Constitution.

Share this