REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

by Oroborus21 103 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  SWALKER

  AuldSoul...I am throwing this out there because I am truly interested in what you and others think about this:

  Take a diabetic for instance...if he/she doesn't get insulin...they can go into shock and sugar/insulin can be given them, it revives them and they are fine. With blood however, suppose someone had surgery, lost a lot of blood, person refused transfusion and died. Will a dr. testify in court that a)the person died because they would not take blood or b) the person died for a specific reason...such as tumor? On a death certificate do they list that a person died due to not taking a blood transfusion? Will that make a difference in effectively suing the WTS?

  Swalker
• 

  Oroborus21

  AS:

  The issue in discussion is the relationship between the parties. This should be a simple concept. Christian Scientists or whoever could publish a pamphlet saying that all medicine is evil and to be rejected.

  Am I justified in relying upon such? Of course not. I have no relationship to the publishers.

  You seem to be hung up on the fact that things are published acting as though this somehow magically makes it special but the law doesn't make a distinction in this area. Oral and written statements are treated the same for purposes of investigating whether they are fraudulent, whether there is a reasonable basis that the receiver would have to act upon such statements, and whether harmed thus occurred. Pure and simple.

  Rather than endlessly debate in the forum and continue to display your lack of understanding basic concepts, since you feel so strongly that you have been deceived by the WT (as your poll answer indicated) then by all means try and bring it to court.

  I certainly don't recommend doing that since you will without a doubt lose and probably be on the hook for attorney's fees, etc. But at least that would be putting your money where your mouth is.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

  (of the fatigued by ignorance class)
• 

  TopHat

  Oraborus21, If the religion you belong to, keeps proclaiming over and over again and again that they are a direct channel to God and there is no other, but the anointed men of Jehovah's Wtnesses that have the truth in this world from God. Soon a member would start to believe every word coming from them as the word from God himself. So the blood booklet is taken as coming from the mouth of God by brainwashed members of that religion. In that way many are decieved who can NOT think for themsleves anymore.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Oroboreus, you are dodging my direct questions to answer what you wish things were like.

  Christian Scientists or whoever could publish a pamphlet saying that all medicine is evil and to be rejected.

  If a religious organization held that religious conviction then their comments regarding it are religious and not medical.

  However, if they wrote at length about the medical risks associated with a specific procedure, misquoted secular sources of information, and urged everyone (the public included) to use their provided information as a basis for an informed medical choice, that is medical advice—not religious advice.

  The law doesn't make distinction with regard to medium a thing is comminicated in? So, if I heard someone say everything in the Blood Brochure I would not be required to prove they said it? You are joking, right? And the fact that I have it recorded would not be additional grounds for challenge over authenticity of the recordings?

  C'mon, man! While the medium of communication technically doesn't make a difference as long as the contents are verifiably from an entity in a fiduciary relationship, printed works are much easier to verify the provenance of than are oral remarks—and are MUCH more difficult to overcome on the basis of misunderstandings or "he said, she said."

  And my two question stand unanswered in your diatribes. I'll post them again, in case you overlooked them. The importance of these answers to the weight of this theory cannot be overstated.

  (1) Is it a person's own fault for believing intentionally misleading legal advice from someone who is not an attorney? I was under the impression that was not the case, but perhaps I am mistaken.

  (2) Is it a person's own fault for believing intentionally misleading medical opinion from someone who is not a medical professional? Somehow, I have a difficult time seeing how that would matter. But, perhaps you are correct.

  If you were debating on this issue, I might feel sorry for your fatigue. But you aren't answering direct questions whenever they challenge your false preconceptions. Take that first step, then cry that you have been "debating." Otherwise, what you are doing is propagandizing, not debating.

  Your Scientology remark addressed a religious doctrine, which the law will not touch. The blood doctrine is not JUST a religious belief, it is also a secular belief held by people who have been exposed to the indoctrination but either no longer agree or never did agree with the religious grounds. THAT is what you have failed at every turn to grasp. If Scientology tried to become more secularly legitimate than a fantasy world of aliens whose spirits entered humans lo these many years ago, they would be held accountable for their attempt if they fail to meet the standards associated with the field on which they comment.

  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  SWALKER,

  In the event of a criminal charge, establishing the cause of death would matter. In the case of a civil tort all that is required (depending on the facts of a particular case) is proof that misleading medical information contributed to death. Proving that would be sufficient to establish harm, and the burden of proof is not as insurmountable as Eduardo suggests, nor is there extreme reluctance on the part of triers, in the current environment, to hold those in positions of authority in trust relationships accountable for how they use their authority.

  I hope that helps answer your question. Proof of contributing to death would be sufficient to meet the burden of proof for "harm." The degree to which that is proven to have impacted the case would be reflected in actual relief awarded.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Oroborus21

  AS:

  You continue to show an amazing amount of lack of perception.

  First the Church of Scientoloy is different than Christian Scientists. look it up. Christian Scientists have a well founded and known belief system that is rejecting of much of medicine - hence the reference. The example is appropo as just as Christian Scientists say don't use this medicine, Witnesses say don't use blood. there may be secular evidence put forth but both are primarily faith based positions.

  Second, I did answer your questions. It is about the RELATIONSHIP pure and simple. If someone anywhere in the world gives misleading or even deliberately false information such lies or deception is not legally actionable (no matter the form) unless there is some relationship between the parties and some rational basis that the receiver would have to believe the speaker and reliance upon what was said/written/printed resulted in harm. (these are the basic elements involved).

  No one could be deemed justified for relying upon the mistatements of law or medicine when the person identified that they were neither a lawyer or a doctor.

  Its common sense written into the law. Shocking i know.

  The person speaking might be punished for practicing law or medicine w/o a license but that is a totally different thing.

  Likewise a lawyer (doctor, mechanic, you) may opine on the law ad nauseum without fear and doesn't even need to be corrrect. It is only when there is a relationship or the semblance of one that she may need to be cautious or when it would be reasonable that a person would actually act upon what was said.

  As to the points of form of communication, you have completely missed the point (again) that this was in reference to the tort of misrepresentation, the point of our discussion. The law deals with forms of communication in other things, for example the difference between slander and libel, but when it comes to the tort of M, the form of the relied upon statement(s) is not germane.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
• 

  AuldSoul

  some rational basis that the receiver would have to believe the speaker and reliance upon what was said/written/printed resulted in harm. (these are the basic elements involved).

  NOW you have it! It is the "rational basis" that the paper presents a means to argue in favor of. The resulting in harm is the easy part.

  They don't state that all medicine should be avoided on religious grounds as do Christian Scientists.

  They do state that THIS particular practice carries a high degree of medical risk, and then proceed to attempt to establish the point through misrepresented secular facts.

  They do state that it should be avoided on religious grounds, but point up the medical benefits of that choice as an added reason to reject transfusions (thereby garnering support for the religious doctrine through misrepresented medical facts).

  Now, unlike the other points of doctrine this one is not once for all times indoctrinated. Do you know why? There is an expiration on effects of the cards themselves. Therefore indoctrination must be ONGOING on this issue. In this case, on a yearly basis up until two years ago. Medical misrepresentation is a consistent part of that ongoing indoctrination.

  And it can be separated from the religious doctrine. In fact, they separated it from the religious doctrine.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  but when it comes to the tort of M, the form of the relied upon statement(s) is not germane.

  You missed my point, you are correct except to the degree that it is provable that misrepresentation ACTUALLY OCCURRED, as opposed to being only perceived as misrepresentation.

  No one could be deemed justified for relying upon the mistatements of law or medicine when the person identified that they were neither a lawyer or a doctor.

  And if the source does NOT identify they are not a lawyer or doctor? Because you won't find that disclaimer in the blood brochure. What THEN, Oroborus.

  See, I don't want to banter over hypothetical situations in other religions or about their potential indoctrination processes. But you don't want to get down to details of THIS religion's indoctrination practices. Why? That is the subject under consideration. Why not dig into THIS subject? The narrow focus requested specifically requested relief for those harmed by "misrepresentation of secular facts."

  So, the point is not to "prove harm." The point is not to establish whether or not it is ALSO a religious doctrine.

  The point is to determine (1) whether there was misrepresentation of secular facts, and (2) whether said misrepresentation contributed to harm, and (3) what relief would compensate for the degree of associated harm. If a court hears the case on this basis, they will quickly quash any attempts from either side of the aisle to shift focus to religious doctrine, so the bulk of your proposed "comeback" would never even be heard by the court. The parameters of argumentation would be set well prior to trying the case, and would surely rule out all religious argumentation from a narrow focus discussion regarding secular misrepresentation.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Oroborus21

  AS:

  "Therefore indoctrination must be ONGOING on this issue. In this case, on a yearly basis up until two years ago. Medical misrepresentation is a consistent part of that ongoing indoctrination."

  This is the point that you and the essayist fail to appreciate. Medically related statements regarding Blood made by Witnesses is part of the indoctrination, the teaching of the doctrine regarding blood, from the outset. It is inseparably religious.

  -Eduardo
• 

  Oroborus21

  
  Lord Auld Soul,

  I will give you the chance to have the last word, after that let's do email or something. I don't think this going back and forth over the same points is not interesting to the forum.

  The "Proof is in the Pudding" as the old saying goes. When I turn out to be right in may judgment and no case is won against the WT in the next 5 years on a tort of misrepresentation concerning blood OR any medical or healtcare statements (or even any secular statements) All i want from you is a big t-bone steak dinner.

  If I am wrong I will gladly serve up some humble pie with your steak too.

  -Eduardo