Hopefully this kid will make it and think about things by his 18th birthday. In the U.S., a judge would probably not force the transfusion upon a 17 year-old unless the kid was not very articulate about why he wants to refuse blood.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
13
JW teen must have transfusion: Judge rules
by Tiktaalik inhttp://www.smh.com.au/national/teen-witness-must-have-a-transfusion-rules-judge-20130417-2i0lc.html.
summary:.
17 year old jw has been ordered by the court to undergo a transfusion if his doctors deem it necessary.
-
-
-
-
-
Chaserious
I think it originated as a legitimate doctrinal belief from a bygone era. They have no interest in changing it now because while bizarre, it is probably not even in the 10 doctrines they take the most heat for, so there would be little benefit from backtracking while adding to the long list of reversed doctrines.
-
162
AAWA has caused divisions and has lost the opportunity to be effective
by NoRegrets inhere's the thing,.
the whole aawa idea had noble ideas behind it, but the ship has sailed and the movement needs to go back to the drawing board.
period.
-
-
Chaserious
You're probably right. The Arizona Corporation Commission wouldn't know dick about Arizona corporate law
I may regret this since the previous discussion was shut down, but how do you not realize that the e-mail posted elsewhere from the Arizona Corporation Commission was a stock answer that in no way responded to any specific facts from the filing in question?
-
39
My View and Bobby Dylan's View of AntiWatchtower Special Groups
by Band on the Run inmy computer crashed so i am not fully informed of the recent antiwatchtower organization.
i must vent, however.
perhaps i am the only one on the face of the earth (or the entire universe) but i found cedar's opening announcement insulting.
-
-
Chaserious
"I am sure they are sour"
-Aesop
-
102
Twin Explosions at Boston Marathon
by BizzyBee inhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-explosion_n_3086665.html.
.
right at the finish line - seems too coincidental to be anything other than a purposeful act.
-
-
Chaserious
Why would you make this about an opportunity to rip Obama, moron?
Go troll on Topix or something.
-
159
Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?
by wha happened? ini guess we're persona non grata now.
take a look at what i found on facebook:.
we're firing up the grill again!
-
-
Chaserious
Chaserious said
"In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not."
fizzywidget said:
"Certain", are you? NOW who's full of conjecture and speculation? How, pray tell, might you be "certain" of that? (As it happens, you would be dead wrong.)"
Well, when you finish your meal and eventually happen back here, maybe you can explain what your research into Arizona law showed about the ability to use a pseudonym. For example, should I assume that in your research you came across State v. Carroll, where the Arizona Appeals Court said:
"The common law gives a person the right to assume a name not given him by his parents and allows him to make valid contracts using the assumed name . . . The Arizona Supreme Court has long recognized that an assumed name is not ‘fictitious' in the sense of being a false pretense . We cannot, therefore, agree with the State's position that signing the check with the assumed name is sufficient to establish a false pretense . . . ."
So, did you find out in your legal research whether Cedars might qualify as an "assumed name" under Arizona law?
You might be right that they were not allowed to incorporate in this manner. I am not inclined to spend a lot of time researching whether that is the case or not. But I don't think anyone in this thread has the expertise to make the conclusive legal opinions that have been expressed about whether an illegal act was committed or not.
-
159
Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?
by wha happened? ini guess we're persona non grata now.
take a look at what i found on facebook:.
we're firing up the grill again!
-
-
Chaserious
They may have filed for the marriage certificate, but they aren't married yet.
Not exactly. State law governs the incorporation of an organization as a "non profit." 501(c) status is federal law that allows for tax exempt status. While most nonprofits are tax exempt and thus there is a lot of overlap between the two, nonprofit and tax exempt are not the same thing.
I don't know where fizzywidget is getting this thing about needing 501(c) status to be a non profit. It's incorrect.
-
159
Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?
by wha happened? ini guess we're persona non grata now.
take a look at what i found on facebook:.
we're firing up the grill again!
-
-
Chaserious
Wow, you really don't get it, fizzywidget.
-
159
Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?
by wha happened? ini guess we're persona non grata now.
take a look at what i found on facebook:.
we're firing up the grill again!
-
-
Chaserious
fizzywidget said:
"However, they are not a nonprofit at this time."
In the very articles of incoporation document that was previously linked to, it says in the first paragraph "The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists (AAWA) . . . has on this day voluntarily decided to form a not for profit corporation"
At least be accurate if you are going to tell me that I "don't get it."
Also, I think you are wrong about the material fact violation related to the criminal record certification. In any event, I am certain that you have not done any legal research to see whether you are correct or not.
-
159
Why isn't anyone on JWN invited to the Facebook discussion by AAWA tonight?
by wha happened? ini guess we're persona non grata now.
take a look at what i found on facebook:.
we're firing up the grill again!
-
-
Chaserious
Posted on behalf of fizzywiglet, at her request, in response to Chaserious:
I didn't say anything about the IRS list.
However, in response to the quotation of this:
"Any person who executed or contributed information for a certificate of disclosure and who intentionally makes any untrue statement of material fact or withholds any material fact with regard to the information required in subsection D, paragraph 1 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony."
The requirement to list names and addresses of directors is not part of subsection D, paragraph 1. That part deals with the criminal record of the officers and directors. Just saying.