Is The Who Woman who wrote This Going To Sue The WT?

by Legolas 48 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Sam the Man
    Sam the Man

    Thank you for your words, as I mentioned earlier I honestly believe that I have read far more interesting, damaging reports on the WT over at freeminds and elsewhere. This is just an essay - does anybody know who wrote it, and was he/she part of the WT like 'our' experts with firsthand knowledge? Or was it rather a born again type annoying sort who thinks now he has found 'Jesus' he has the right to create 'groundbraking' essays which are neither here nor there?


    Sam. I don't think it's a matter of Barbara wanting attention. It's just that we all handle "news" differently. She probably already regrets hyping it up like that... but let's just forget about that.

    DanielP...Let's just don't forget about it!!!!!! NO ONE IN HER POSITION SHOULD BE PUTTING OUT ATTENTION GRABBING HEADLINES LIKE THAT and then not put out the goods! Her reputation has lost a few notches here and it will be interesting to see how she does damage control. I hope her book has facts backed up by reputable sources...

    Sam I am sorry for the idiots who sent you those pm's. I apologize for their ignorance... even if they don't.

    I said I wasn't going to post again today...I'm off!


  • AuldSoul

    No offense to those who apparently expected mass exodus, but that was never even insinuated by anyone who knew the score.

    What was said was that from a source that is outside of the exJW/JW community we would get something big that proved deceit. The fact that it was outside ruled out over 3/4 of the guesses you guys came up with.

    For this to be bigger than the child abuse scandal all that is required is for it to have enough muscle to push its way into a courtroom. Was the Cild Abuse scandal big news? Yes. Do I believe this will prve to be bigger news? Yes.

    But, it will take effort to make it newsworthy, just as with the child abuse scandal. You were all told that up front, several times. If you all wish to cast dark clouds over the best chance we have ever had to do actual DAMAGE to the belly of the beast, go right ahead. But I'll be damned if I can figure out a motive for it.

    What better result than that some unbelieving mate who lost a husband and father to her children may have a hope of some justice for the senselessness of it. Do you think you can find things it could have been that would have been better still? Sure. Easily. But that isn't what you were promised. You were promised better than what has come before.

    And for value in courts, nothing has come close to this one. How exactly would you pursue the UN/DPI issue in such a way as to DAMAGE the beast? You guys are looking at this thing cockeyed.


  • Sam the Man
    Sam the Man

    She has a book coming out? Well I certainly wont be getting a copy. It would be like buying a trash newspaper for 'facts'

  • jgnat

    I wasn't disappointed. That's the truth too.

  • LittleToe

    Each of us have issues which are "big" to us. I have no doubt that this one was such, for Barbara. Having met her I have no reason to call into question her intent and will happily defend her to the hilt.

    I intentionally didn't follow the threads on this because I don't like hype, so I never experienced any disappointment. I would, however, categorise this new essay as being on the scale of the expose on the Trinity Brochure. If it get's some legal cases going, all so much the better.

    Don't underestimate this one. The expose on the Trinity brochure was a real revelation to me. Even though I had decided to leave the JWs by the time I read it, it underline their scholastic dishonesty. To me that was entirely useful in escaping the mindset. I hope this essay will have a similar effect in helping people disengage their mental processes from the indoctrination.

    How many people do you know who have left the JWs and still feel they should refute the Trinity doctrine on biblical grounds? How many people do you know who have left the JWs and still feel they should refuse blood transfusions on medical grounds?

    I don't know whether I'd scale this as "big" news, but it certainly is an important contribution to the cause against cults.

  • doogie


    And for value in courts, nothing has come close to this one.

    i was just wondering, and i mean this as a sincere question, do you have any legal background or experience? i'm wading through the monumental # of posts on this subject and i was just curious as i'm reading many of your posts. eduardo's critique of the essay excerpts are very logical and i was just wondering if you noticed a flaw in his argument or something.

    personally, i don't have any stake in this discussion whatsoever (see my post in the "Do you even want contact with your family again" [or something like that] thread ), but i did find the initial thread's title to be a bit misleading in its comparisons to the UN and Abuse scandals, given what the News actually was. to liken it to the UN or Dateline issues probably got people's hopes up a bit too high that this News would have similar salience on a personal level to individual JWs as those issues did. we see now that, while this may be important in the future from a legal standpoint, it really has no simlarities whatsoever to the power of the 2 other 'scandals' (on an individual level). while this News may pan out to be good news, it is not of the same breed as the ones mentioned. hence, the (IMO) justified disappointment.

  • Finally-Free
    The expose on the Trinity brochure was a real revelation to me.

    LT, do you know where I could find this?


  • Sam the Man
    Sam the Man

    Finally Free, there are brochures entitled 'should you believe, 'should you believe in the trinity'? and also 'exposing, exposing exposing should you believe in the trinity'.

  • AuldSoul


    Only what experience I have gained first hand in court, in watching court proceedings, and in studying history with a heavy skew toward historical transitions of legal interpretations. I was in a line of work that frequently had me in court and I have served as a runner in many cases. You hear things. I have an avid interest in law, especially Constitutional law. I find the warp and woof of its patterns fascinating.

    I doubt Eduardo would deny that courts are not moving the same direction as legislators when it comes to interpretting individual rights v. institutional rights. This shifting wind makes it more likely this issue will be heard, and heard favorably.

    As to this particular issue, Eduardo has not said what KIND of lawyer he is. At least, not that I have seen. Kimberlee Norris (stillconcerned), graduated from Baylor and smartly answered his spurious charge that Baylor is a religiously orientated School of Law. Ms. Norris says she wrote for Law Review.

    In my opinion, that roundly thumps Eduardo's admitted calling card, "I haven't been published." Someone who is so certain of his views that he hasn't gotten a single one of them published doesn't actually impress me that much. Perhaps he is afraid of shifting the status quo and lashes out at those who are braver than him. I have no interest in psychoanalyzing his motives, but it is obvious that someone whose opinion survived peer-review has greater weight than a naysayer whose objections did not survive any review, including that of a relatively backwater forum.

    In my opinion, the "law student" (as Eduardo referred to the essay writer) who has been published trumps the Esquire who hasn't.

    In my opinion, Eduardo is hasty to post that Journal of Church and State would be light-handed in a review of a paper to be published from a law student. Having worked in a company that published two "top-of-the-heap" trade journals, if anything the opposite is true. A well-reputed attorney would be given a light hand while a nobody would be reviewed witha fine-toothed comb. But then, never having been published what would qualify him to speak to that point at all?

    Of course, these are merely my opinions, they are not offered with any authoritative abbreviations behind my name. Being a lawyer doesn't make someone intelligent of the law, automatically. Neither does being a student make someone stupid.


Share this