Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court

by Marvin Shilmer 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  Watchtower misrepresents Santinelli on transfusion

  Today I added a new article to my blog revealing a documented instance of Watchtower lying to the Supreme Court of Florida about a doctor’s view on blood transfusion.

  For more than one reason this is a particularly bad instance of Watchtower dishonesty at work. Aside from the unethical deed of lying to a court of law, we have the blatant immorality of having told this lie to untold millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses who’ve paid the high price of suffering tens of thousands of their friends and family members suffering premature death thinking Watchtower was telling them the truth.

  My article is titled Watchtower misrepresents Santinelli on transfusion and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/01/watchtower-misrepresents-santinelli-on.html

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  Chaserious

  I don't see anything about Florida there... it's about misleading WT quotes.

  Edit: nevermind, I see it in the footnote
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “I don't see anything about Florida there”

  Look at the sub-section titled “Making things worse”

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Chaserious

  Interesting. I read the relevant part of the amicus brief that you linked to. Personally, I don't think this was a breach of legal ethics or outside of the realm of reasonable zealous advocacy. Of course, it would change the equation to include more context to show that the reason, at least in part, that Santinelli opposed transfusion was because of the inhumane methods of collecting blood in those days. But they didn't misrepresent Santinelli's position nor did they omit a part of the actual quote itself so as to change the meaning. Additionally, this quote has nothing to do with their legal argument as it is under the heading that provides a history on the "Christian" reasoning for their belief. Whether there is a legitimate doctrinal justification for refusing blood is not relevant to the court. The WTS also didn't represent a party in this case, so while the same ethical duties apply, an amicus brief is not going to be scrutinized as carefully in most cases.

  Edit to add: The brief is also very preachy and spends little time on the legal merits. My guess would be that this was a non-HQ witness attorney who jumped on this and counted about 100 hours of field service time over a few months working on the brief. They probably don't have the resources to put a Bethel lawyer on things where no WTS $$$ is at stake, especially 20 years ago. This of course, was about whether the witness who had a blood transfusion forced upon her would recover money from the hospital for the indignity of saving her life.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “…they didn't misrepresent Santinelli's position nor did they omit a part of the actual quote itself so as to change the meaning.”

  I appreciate your thoughtful review, and that you have a view contrary to my own.

  My reason for cataloging this as misrepresentation is because everything argued by Watchtower is in support of the organization’s unique theology objecting to blood transfusion and “the adventures and misadventures of transfusion practice in modern times.”

  Santinelli’s view neither supports the unique theology of Watchtower nor addresses blood transfusion as practiced in modern times.

  Thanks for sharing your observation.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Chaserious

  I would agree with you that Santinelli didn't object to transfusion for the same doctrinal reason that Watchtower objects. However, they made no such argument in the brief. All they do is say that experimental transfusions were underway in the 17th century, accurately quote a portion of what Santinelli wrote, and move on. You observe that:

  " everything argued by Watchtower is in support of the organization’s unique theology objecting to blood transfusion and 'the adventures and misadventures of transfusion practice in modern times.' Santinelli’s view neither supports the unique theology of Watchtower nor addresses blood transfusion as practiced in modern times."

  This is true. But they don't argue anywhere in the brief that Santinelli's view supports their theology. You might make the implication, but they didn't say it. I don't even think they imply it. Santinelli's name is not mentioned in the brief anywhere after this quote. I understand your point, but realistically you could find worse than this in almost any appellate brief in any case around the country. That's why both sides have lawyers; to point out the weaknesses in the other side's argument and to present the facts in the most favorable light for the client.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “But they don't argue anywhere in the brief that Santinelli's view supports their theology.”

  Watchtower offered Santinelli’s view in relation to “transfusion practice in modern times,” which more than implies something about his view is relevant to the issue before the court when in fact nothing of Santinelli’s view is relevant for the reasons I shared before.

  1. Santinelli says nothing whatsoever in support of Watchtower’s unique theology related to blood, and…

  2. Santinelli says nothing whatsoever about transfusion practice in modern times.

  What Santinelli said of blood transfusion was said wholly of a practice that has not been employed for centuries.

  Thanks for sharing your observations.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  BluesBrother

  I have to agree with Marvin Shimer. The quote used in their legal argument is incomplete and fails to present the view of Santinelli that the apostolic decree should be viewed as temporary.

  However, it is a small part of their argument and I doubt that anybody was still listening by then! Is it not irrelevant to their case to present the information that, 500 years ago, blood transfusions were disapproved of? ..I mean, who cares about that ?
• 

  Chaserious

  Marvin,

  You're confusing me a bit now. The quote is not offered in relation to "transfusion practices in modern times". The term "modern times" is only used once in the entire brief, in the "Summary of Argument" section. No judge could possibly think that every part of the brief is supposed to be directly relevant to "transfusion practices in modern times" because that term is mentioned once in the summary, any more than anyone would think that every sentence in the brief is supposed to support it being prohibited "under the Mosaic Law" because that phrase also is used in the summary. (A phrase that also indicates that the entire brief is not going to focus on "modern times.")

  Rather than purporting to have anything to do with modern times, the Santinelli quote is under the subheading "Commentary on the Christian probibition of blood." I think that your points (1) and (2) above are quite obvious, and that no intelligent person would possibly read the brief to mean that Santinelli supported the WTS's theology or that it relates to modern times. They're tracing the history of blood transfusions in the section in question, albeit in the light most favorable to their position, which is fair game. Do you really think any members of the Florida Supreme Court believe that blood transfusions are administered the same way in 1668 (a date listed directly under the quote) as they are now? In my humble opinion, you would have to take the Justices for fools to be "misled" in the manner suggested.

  As BluesBrother notes, this is all background as well. That's why the subheading is called "commentary". Even if they could prove that the Pope, 100 monks and a carriage full of nuns all taught that blood transfusions were unscriptural in 1668, the Court could not constitutionally factor that into their decision. Thanks once again for sharing an interesting read.

  -C
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “No judge could possibly think that every part of the brief is supposed to be directly relevant to "transfusion practices in modern times" because that term is mentioned once in the summary,…”

  Respectfully, if Santinelli’s view 1) is unrelated to modern transfusion practice and 2) it offers no support whatsoever to the belief taught by Watchtower then it’s misleading to assert his comments into this legal brief because they’re completely and utterly irrelevant.

  Watchtower included those comments because, in its view, those comments were somehow relevant to the issue before the court, which issue had to do with modern transfusion practice and Watchtower theology. What Santinelli said had nothing whatsoever to do with either.

  Marvin Shilmer