by Legolas 48 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Whether People like it or not,the truth is, there are a lot of disappointed People out there.
Whether people like it or not, the truth is, WTBTS lied. Barbara has not and did not.
There are and will be a lot of disappointed people over lies, not truth.
sKally
auldsoul:
gotcha (i think). so you don't necessarily find any fault with his arguments themselves? just mainly his presentation?
i would just be interested in hearing another attorney answer the (seemingly pretty substantial) arguments that eduardo brought up.
Barbara should not be immune to any blame. She hyped this up, it was a nothing thing.
doogie,
In short, yes, in my opinion his arguments are grossly flawed. If I am ever being taken to court for tort claims I hope he's across the aisle.
BIG NEWS Reply: Cliff's Notes Version
I can't believe an attorney wrote that. Worse still, did so pretending that his opinion had merit. Not for nothing, but I have had personal experience with the wrecked car analogy he used, and his theory of what is required is cracked to the core. Especially his expert reasoning that the context of "recklessness" in tort law has anything to do with HOW information is communicated rather than its unheeded potentially adverse consequences.
Then he proceeds to make an incredibly compelling case for why this will probably work, seemingly without realizing that's what he is doing. He compares it to the lemon laws. Misrepresentation of facts leading to contract is tortuous, whether economic harm is incurred or not, despite Eduardo's claim to the contrary.
Later in the thread, he states: "most JWs DO NOT READ THE BLOOD BROCHURE ANYMORE because it is out of date." An odd statement considering JWs are encouraged to do just that in the DECEMBER 2005 KM.
I don't know what he's playing at exactly, but it isn't fair presentation of the merits of this opinion, that's for sure.
I think Kimberlee Norris might be willing to help with a layman's breakdown. Lord knows it would help a lot to have a lawyer's perspective.
AuldSoul
Lord knows it would help a lot to have a lawyer's perspective.
ha! that's putting it mildly! this is all greek to me.
thanks for the input auldsoul. i gotcha.
i guess it's hard to have any real opinion other than speculation without the whole article and critiques by various attorneys.
in my opinion his arguments are grossly flawed.Lord knows it would help a lot to have a lawyer's perspective.
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't he a lawyer himself? If he is, you got a lawyer's perspective, you just didn't like it.
Yeah..it definately, in my opinion was hyped up...but, from people's perspective, I guess it was a big deal.
Oh well...carry on..nothing to see here...just a shrubbery....
How many people do you know who have left the JWs and still feel they should refuse blood transfusions on medical grounds?
Good point, LT. I'm just such a person. I've been wondering what I would do if I became sick or injured and a blood transfusion was put forward as necessary. Based on what I thought was good information from the WTS about the hazards of transfusions, I was seriously thinking that I'd refuse.
I am STILL waiting for an answer
I don't know if she's planning to sue the WT. All I can say is, if I were about to file a lawsuit I would probably not publish my legal strategy ahead of time. W
Eduardo's after-midnight analyses were right on point. I would grade him A-, and the minus is not because of anything that would weaken his points.
I suspect that the only reason this article [with its ridiculous legal theory(s)], got published is due to the portions that expose the factual misrepresentations by the WBTS.
It is an absolute shame that the XJWs working behind the scenes on this never contacted Eduardo or one of the other attorneys who float around here so as to get a reality check about the info on which they were working.
Hopefully the article will be worthwhile in exposing WBTS doctine as crap, because it is useless as a legal weapon.
Hopefully, the few legal professions who are forced to read it will not assume that the author's info and analysis of the doctrinal portions are as flawed as is the legal portion. Frankly, this article has the possibility of hurting more than helping.
I would have loved to have received a "nuclear bomb" for Xmas, but this is a firecracker that probably is not worth as much as the Bergman and Devore books.
If some folks here insist on playing this article up as much as has been done thus far from the legal angle, they put their credibility on other matters at risk. Noone wants that. We have a hard enough job fighting the WBTS as it is without shooting ourselves in the foot.
