by Oroborus21 103 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • AuldSoul

    Enigma One,

    I realize you were not specifically addressing me, but I wish to point out clearly that I did attack his assumptions and arguments. And his response continues to be ingnorant posts to the effect that if it is a religious belief anything they publish about it is untouchable. The most hilarious part is he stresses context, in his own analysis, and the context of the medical claims both SUPPORTS and FORMS THE MAJOR THESIS of Ms. Louderback-Wood's theory. He keeps attacking her theory in broad focus, while the theory specifically stipulates narrow focus as the only way it could be legally considered.

    Until he gets that through his head, he will keep posting inanity, in my "uprofessional" opinion.

    If you perceive any personal attack from me to be anything other than a public demonstration of his VERY public discarding of ethical principle in VERY specific ways, then you are incorrect. Maybe in California attorneys are allowed to give unsolicited legal counsel outside the bounds of their state. I doubt it, though. Maybe in California adding "Esq." to the end of your name doesn't validate the preceding legal opinions expressed as actionable. I doubt it, though. I'll check and let you know.

    The point is, since he is a lawyer and he is trying to use that status to gain support for his view, I have every right to show where he isn't behaving as lawyers behave. Maybe he is just tired of being a lawyer and would rather sell communication services, hook people up with hot Ukranian girls, push for reforms of Jehovah's Witness' dogma, and help his brother get that pump into production.

    I wish him all the best, but if his maverick and cavalier attitude toward ethical misconduct is spotted by the wrong person he could potentially be disbarred for the content of his posts on this forum, not just in this thread. Maybe he will read this and think on how ethics violations rulings in his state would indicate he should behave. I know I will be waiting to see a change.


  • jst2laws
    I have been informed that as many as 50% of JW's, when faced with death, cave in and allow a blood transfusion. Even if this is inaccurately high, I wonder what percentage of JW's in a life threatening situation dismiss their religious doubts and refuse blood because they are wrongly convinced that blood alternatives are just as save and that a blood transfusion is needless and dangerous? These people have likely been mislead by WT misrepresentation and those who were harmed, or the families of such, WILL have a case against the religious organization that misrepresented the facts. I'm just wondering what the statute of limitations might be regarding my father's death. STeve
  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Auld, I wasn't specifically talking to you....mainly to say hey, tear the argument apart. Not the individual. Because if it's not Oronbus making an opposing counterpoint to Ms. Louderback's paper, it'll be another darn lawyer. Can't swing a deat cat without hitting a lawyer ya know. LOL.

    Actually by BOTH of you arguing for and against can I start to understand the legal argument and how a judge would have to sit in judgment over it. So I'm learning a lot this way. Carry on.

  • AuldSoul
    Can't swing a deat cat without hitting a lawyer ya know.

    Yeah, and you can't swing a live one for long without it becoming a dea-... so anyway, yeah, I think this is a good discussion too. LOL [*plinks* two bits into ballistic's "lol" jar, muttering epithets under his breath]

    I have no problem with arguing the merits of this paper. I have a problem with (1) his initial overly hasty and uninformed rejection of the notion, and his subsequent attempts to stretch in supporting his original impression, (2) his denigration of his colleague's professionalism, (3) his advice regarding how to interpret the law outside his licensed state, (4) serving unsolicited legal counsel. If he were doing so informally, he'd be any other poster hashing this out and I would welcome his takes on it.

    Under the title "Esquire" it oversteps the codes of ethical conduct, and it irks me that he casually sloughs off his ethical responsibility with a tiny disclaimer while trying to support his opinions with that very same professional "clout." It irritates me that the opinions of others are devalued relative to his simply because he is willing to overstep ethical rules of conduct in about a half-dozen ways. Which was why I invited him, rather glibly, to come after me if he likes in response to West70s urgings. I do not think he would enjoy the experience.

    I appreciate the value added by all posters here, including Eduardo. Without catalysts such as Eduardo-Esq.(ue) posts, this would be a pretty dull place. Discussions go much deeper because of respectful conflict. He seems to have pretty thick skin, I just wish he would not flaunt his title as a means of gaining the upper hand in the forum's eyes. Here, every opinion is equal...except Simon's, for obvious reasons.


  • steve2

    I'd be interested in the source of the "50 percent cave in" and accept blood figure. So very easily said, far less easily verified. The figure sounds more like conjecture to me. At best, it would require very wide sampling of JW behaviour from a wide number of hospitals and Emergency Departments around the globe. It's amazing how quickly figures drawn out of the air can solidify into something that seems reasonable and research-based but is little more than conjecture.

  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    So, let me ask this.....would you want to fight this case in federal court? Or state court? And why or why not?

  • Narkissos

    Just a brief remark. It is in the best interests of whoever contemplates to sue the WT on this basis to have the legal merits of the argument thoroughly discussed first, by professional lawyers, at a theoretical level. Whatever objections which come up on this board are sure to be encountered in court. The potential plaintiffs are the ones who will have to pay emotionally and financially for it -- not the average JWD poster.

    Everyone should think twice about that before resorting to personal attacks or intimidation imho.

  • seesthesky

    someone asked:

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Steve2 writes:

    “I'd be interested in the source of the "50 percent cave in" and accept blood figure.”

    I don’t know about the 50 percent figure you question, but certain facts about the WTS’ Blood Doctrine compared to the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses are well documented.

    For instance:

    Jehovah’s Witnesses have never universally assented to the WTS’ Blood Doctrine, yet the WTS has imposed this Blood Doctrine on all Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses have asked the WTS to accept the medical use of blood.—Letter published anonymously, Further on Blood Transfusion, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., The Watchtower, 1950 May 1:143

    WTS appointees have voiced disagreement to the WTS about the Blood Doctrine.— R. Jensen, personal letter to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, dated March 1, 2000

    The WTS admits that its Blood Doctrine is not determined by a majority conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Anonymous, Be Guided By The Living God, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., The Watchtower, 6/15 2004

    So far as a percentage of Jehovah’s Witnesses who are willing to accept forbidden blood products, a well documented study by Dr. Karen Benson(1) showed 10 percent of JW cancer patients willing to accept WTS forbidden blood products. But if you want to know a percentage of Jehovah’s Witnesses that use from the donated and stored blood supply, my personal experience is that in excess of 90 percent are more than willing to do so. Of course most of this use from the donated and stored blood supply is not of products from blood that are forbidden by the WTS. But it is use of the blood supply nevertheless!

    Marvin Shilmer




  • Pistoff

    "So, do you think Bethel's writing department is going to change? Do you think that they will be more honest when they quote?"

    I think they will tilt once again to the "legally safe" mode; since when have they ever been honest for the sake of honesty????

    Not once.

    It is always about either money or litigation with them. If it ain't broken, i.e., causing them monetary or legal pain, they will just leave it alone.

Share this