Mr. Eduardo has misrepresented the Molko case as he did not give enough detail, rather he minimized it.
I've not read Molko in a few days...but here is Molko's story as I remember them and how they might apply to the Society.
A fresh out of law school lawyer is standing on a street corner in California. Young lawyer is approached by an undercover Moonie(s), who invite young lawyer to a political dinner. Young lawyer attends. Dinner discussion centers around environment/politics/etc. Young lawyer's happy. The political group invites him to visit their farm. Young lawyer visits the farm for a day or so, and is always allowed to leave. Young lawyer starts to wonder about this group, and repeatedly asks, "Are you the Moonies?" They repeatedly deny it. After a few more days, one of the Moonie gals admits to young lawyer they are the Moonies. Even though they lied, young lawyer becomes a Moonie anyway. The Moonies tell young lawyer that anyone who opposes the Moonies (like his parents) are the agents of Satan. So, his parents can't persuade him away. Young lawyer "studies" with the Moonies for a few months, and is baptized and stays in for a while longer (few months). Young lawyer/Moonie gets out & decides to sue Moonies.
At this point, this young lawyer had little established law to back up his case or to take on a strong organization with money, such as the Unification Church (nice name to cover up the Moonies, I thought). What would you have told this young lawyer, Mr. Eduardo Esq? "It's impossible you wet, behind the ears, twit?" I'm glad Mr. Eduardo Esq was not around, because Young Lawyer sued and WON! By the way, have you, Mr. Eduardo Esq, ever heard of charities that help with some of these anti-cult lawsuits....? I digress, back to the Moonie story.
Moonies defend that their lies about their identity were religiously motivated.
Court says, bullshxx!
Court said basically churches can't lie to people about really important secular facts (in this case, the identity) when recruits are entering a coercive environment.
How does this Moonie case apply to the Society? The Society's blood booklet Society has half-truths in their blood booklet. The book was "published" in 1990, but it has been printed since. The 12/2005 Kingdom Ministry tells parents to use it to train their children. So, it's current stuff even though it was published in 1990, and the Society is currently putting its stamp on it. People have been writing the Society for years about the misrepresentations in the secular sections of this booklet. Yes, the Society has more literature on blood. But CDs/DVDs are created & edited by the Society, the appearing doctors may be paid by the Society for their viewpoint, and the listener doesn't get to hear the Society's complete question or the doctor's complete response. As the blood booklet uses quotes from doctors who wrote in major medical journals, it is a better avenue to figure out if/where/how the Society misrepresented facts. You seemed to indicate that there was alot of discussion on just the booklet's misrepresentations. Isn't according to Civil Procedure Rule 9, mispresentations must be pled with "particularity" and how many misrepresentations did she list our of all the quotes from the secular sections that were adequately referenced by the Society?
Here's an example. Housewife is greeted at door by JWs. She begins a study. After a few months, the study turns to the blood doctrine. The brothers bring out the blood pamphlet. She reads it. (It has lies in it.) The Society's been printing this booklet for years, and has had ample warnings from readers that it contains those lies. But, she doesn't know the lies and believes the blood doctrine both for religious and secular reasons. She reads in the Watchtower that people/doctors/lawyers who push blood are doing work orchestrated by Satan. She knows that if she takes blood, she will lose relationships with her family, friends, and business friends through shunning.
What does this equal Mr. Eduardo Esq?
= Society knowingly gives false lie that is potentially life damaging + those who oppose the blood stance are agents of Satan/shunning.
= Misrepresentation + undue coercion.
It's worse than the Moonies, because:
1) the JW recruit could have died/did die/did have organ failure from lack of blood. In the Moonies, the Young Lawyer lived a year with flowers on a farm and had some pychological damages.
2) In the Moonie case, the young lawyer did find out the lie and still became a Moonie. One could say that he "ratified" the lie (an argument that the Moonies also tried, but the court said bullshxx!) In the JW recruit, she could never have ratified the lie, because it was not admitted/discovered....but was subtle and hidden in the booklet's writing style. Plus, she's warned to not read "opposing" literature and must "avoid independent thinking" and "thinking ahead of the Society."
Ms. L-W's essay did not include undue coercion, from what I gather from your review. You mentioned that it was about 40 pages long. Perhaps that is because the Journal of Church and State had a page limit or required she only discuss one of the many torts that might be applicable to this situation. When I get my hardcopy, I'll compare her essay's # of pages with the other.
Ms. L-W’s reasons as to why she did or did not give any more personal information, may be completely personal. But, it sounds like it made her mad enough to start a lawsui...similar to Mr. Molko. She did disclose her relationshp, something that is usually required in academic papers. If she did not disclose anything, then her paper would REALLY be discredited.
Why didn't she sue? Perhaps the mother's will gave everything to someone else. Perhpas her mother was old/sick and wouldn't make "much money" in court (you'd understand this reason). Perhaps she'd rather write an article to change the future (rather than make money off her mother's death).