Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court

by Marvin Shilmer 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Is it not irrelevant to their case to present the information that, 500 years ago, blood transfusions were disapproved of?”

  That would depend on the view being offered. If, for instance, Santinelli believed the Apostolic Decree was a permanent tenet of Christian faith and that transfusion was essentially the same as eating blood then his view would not be irrelevant despite being centuries old. But Santinelli held neither of these views.

  By the way, there is some extremely sloppy research in this particular legal brief. That whole thing about Pope Innocent the VIII having a blood transfusion is at least as bogus as a 3-dollar US bill. But I decline to assert inclusion of this bad information as dishonestly because Watchtower is not the first to share the idea. On the other hand, Watchtower is unique in its usage of Santinelli’s statements on blood transfusion. What Santinelli said has nothing whatsoever to do with modern transfusion practice and offers no support whatsoever to its blood doctrine. If anything, what Santinelli said condemns Watchtower’s taboo on blood.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Chaserious

  The last I'll say on this is that we seem to agree that the quote is somewhat irrelevant. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I found the brief to be preachy and spend little time on the legal merits. The author seemed to be more interested in "giving a witness" than persuading the court. An amicus brief is a proper vehicle for providing background information that might not be appropriate for the parties' briefs, and this one probably stretches the rubber band pretty far in this regard. With that said, I don't know that this alone equals misleading, and it absolutely is not a violation of court rules or legal ethics. If you could make a dollar for every irrelevant statement you could find in an amicus brief, you'd have quite an earning opportunity.

  As an aside, you note " the issue before the court, which issue had to do with modern transfusion practice and Watchtower theology."

  Respectfully, that was not the issue before the Florida Supreme Court. The two issues were whether a state interest (the welfare of her minor children) can be asserted to override a patient's refusal of medical treatment, and if so, whether that interest outweighs a patient's right to privacy and religious freedom. These are broad issues, neither of which has to do with Watchtower Theology or modern transfusion practice, and indeed demonstrating that BluesBrother is correct that this whole thing was irrelevant. As the Florida Supreme Court eventually wrote:

  T he arguments made in this Court present two basic issues. First, we must determine whether it is appropriate for a hospital to assert the state interests in an attempt to defeat a patient's decision to forgo emergency medical treatment. Second, assuming the state interests were properly presented in this case, we must decide whether Patricia's rejection of a blood transfusion constituted, as the district court found, abandonment of the couple's minor children and amounted to a state interest that was compelling enough to override her constitutional rights of privacy and religious freedom, by the least intrusive means available.

  In re Dubreuil, 629 So. 2d, at 822.
• 

  Chaserious

  Also, if you do believe that this minutiae is in any way relevant, I would suggest reading the Supreme Court's decision and seeing there is one word mentioned about WT theology, the history of blood transfusions, why JWs don't take blood, or what the Bible says (hint: there isn't, event thought the JW won). The reality is that whether you have a belief in something because the Bible said it 2,000 years ago, the Watchtower came up with it 50 years ago, or the Flying Spaghetti God told it to you in a dream last night, your legal rights are the same.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Also, if you do believe that this minutiae is in any way relevant,…”

  Chaserious,

  1. I do not now and never have thought the inclusion of Santinelli’s view was relevant to legal issues before the court in this case, or to issues Watchtower brought before the court in its amicus brief.

  2. My earlier remark about issues before the court were not said of the legal issues at stake but, rather, to substantive issues raised by Watchtower in its amicus brief relating to the modern practice of blood transfusion and the religion’s own theology. That Watchtower raised those issues was my point, and that Watchtower’s sharing of Santinelli’s perspective in that regard is wholly misleading. Santinelli said nothing of modern blood transfusion and said nothing remotely supportive of Watchtower theology.

  3. I recognize all the time you’ve put into this review and wish to thank you for it.

  4. Watchtower’s historical usage of Santinelli’s comments is dishonest, and it took great care to introduce the same comments into its amicus brief in a way to offer a degree of plausible deniability of any intent to deceive. That said, when reviewed in total what Santinelli said actually condemns Watchtower teaching, something Watchtower failed to point out in its use of the material.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Chaserious

  It was a pleasure, of course, to discuss this topic with you, Marvin. I know I said my previous post was the last, but as I thought about this today, I realized something else. However one might characterize the quote, I think I understand why they used it, and in a broader sense, included the commentary section of the brief.

  As you are probably aware, when an appellate court hears a case, not only do the judges or justices vote on the result, but one of them is assigned to write an opinion explaining the reasoning for the result. In these opinions, some judges are inclined to include a lot of background information. This can vary from almost none to several pages. Some believe that judges are more inclined to include a lengthy background if there is a brief that contains a well-written, fair summary. So, I think this might have been a "hail mary" if you will, hoping that perhaps the judge might use some of this in the opinion, thus portraying the Watchtower's doctrine in a favorable light to consumers of judicial opinions. Ultimately the opinion contained none of this, but I think it's the most plausible explanation for including irrelevant information. The Watchtower has a long history, going back to the flag salute cases, of not only trying to win the case, but hoping to get the opinion written the way they want. (e.g., often in a way that benefits them and no one else.)
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Chaserious,

  When I’ve expressed appreciation for your review and comments it’s been genuine. Feel free to chime in on this or any of my other discussions whenever and as much as you want when you are so compelled.

  I don’t disagree Watchtower was hoping for a windbag judge to write a wordy opinion that would include this junk presentation of Santinelli’s view. Like other defendants, Watchtower wanted a finding in its favor, and if not then at least a dissenting opinion borrowing some of its language (like Watchtower’s version of Santinelli’s view).

  But in the case of Santinelli Watchtower knew perfectly well this man’s perspective did nothing to help their cause, and if read independently would do no less than undermine the organization’s position on blood transfusion.

  My take on this is somewhat strong I know. Have you noticed Watchtower shared Santinelli’s view in English yet offered no source for this English translation of the document it references, which is in medieval Latin? This is because Watchtower had its own translators read and translate this Latin into English for it to be examined for use. There’s two things about this which only make this instance more egregious. 1) Watchtower could not have had that much intimacy with the text without realizing they were misusing what Santinelli actually wrote, and 2) Watchtower had no reason to think a judge would bother making an independent translation of a medieval Latin work that in 1993 was nearly impossible (if not impossible!) to locate, not to mention access.

  This episode smacks of a level of disingenuousness like few others. Fortunately there are a few of us who take time and are willing to bear the expense of finding and securing independent translation of these references to find out the fact of matters.

  Again, thanks so much for your review and comment. Feel free anytime.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  ÁrbolesdeArabia

  Very cool thread, I enjoyed reading Marvin and Chase's dissection of the material and explaining in more simple term's what is going on. Thank's Marvin and Chase!