To Dismiss The Complaint And An Alternative Motion To Vacate An Existing: Fill & Download for Free

I posed this question because I believe there can be a free market solution to Torts on every level. All of the answers to this question have stated variations of the same absurd notion. They all claim people change their behavior for the better because of the threat of legal action. This statement contains three flawed premises. The first is that people act in a more careful manner because of the threat of being sued for causing an injury. The second is that Tort law is a fair and efficient method of compensation for injuries. The third is that people understand what Tort law is all about. All of these premises are false.Let’s examine each of these assumptions.Their first assumption is that the threat of a lawsuit that causes people to change their behavior to decrease the likelihood of causing an injury. My question right back to them is “Does criminal law prevent crime? “ If that was the case, the USA should have the smallest per capita criminal prisoner rate in the world. Instead we have one of the largest. What prevents most crimes is the fear of getting caught. Is there something fundamentally different about the population that commits crimes and are incarcerated, then the rest of US citizenry? Not really. It’s just that the more intelligent and affluent members of our population commit crimes all the time, they are just too smart to get caught, or they are in a state of rage or inebriation when they commit a crime that causes it to be discovered. There are also those that have the hubris to believe that their lofty station in life makes them immune to the consequences of criminal behavior, such as OJ Simpson, and the Enron executives. The truth is that most people realize if they create a condition where someone could be injured, it is going to cost them money. For example, if they own a factory, an injury will cost the loss of services of a valued employee, it will hurt morale and productivity of their other employees, it could shut down an assembly line, and finally the company’s insurance rates will go up. Or in the case of many companies who self-insure for injury compensation it is coming right out of their pockets. In the case of a factory, I In most cases, worrying about a lawsuit is down the list. In other words, in the case of this hypothetical factory, its not Tort law, which most laymen wouldn’t even know what that word meant, its about risk and reward. How can we produce a product with the least cost in order to make the highest profit? You lawyers will now come in and say, its Tort law induces these factory owners to purchase insurance. (Actually, a factory is a poor example, because I believe all states have mandatory workmen’s compensation insurance. But many states allow a company or association of companies to have a self-insurance workmen’s compensation program. For a few years, I was part of the management team for a very large self-insurance workmen’s compensation program. In our program it was the prevention and challenge to workmen’s compensation claims that was our greatest worry, not lawsuits.”) But that is not true I say there exists an alternative that would not require lawyers and their outrageous fees and ridiculous high penal awards.Their second premise is that Tort law is a fair and efficient method of compensation for injuries. The only time this is true is if the injury, the cause of injury, and the costs of the injury are so clear that either the person who is responsible for the injury or his insurance company settles the case swiftly. If the facts and responsibilities of the case are not obvious, or the injured party goes to a lawyer who promises an award far exceeding what the injured party is entitled, a lawsuit ensues. Then the case is no longer about the Tort (the actual civil wrong), it is about how much can the Lawyer extort from the defendant or the defendant’s insurance company. It is actually just anther form of legal looting, or forcible monetary redistribution. This is especially true if the claim concerned was about public liability, which could get a defendant involved in one of the more destructive parts of our legal system, class action suits.The third is that most people don’t even have any idea what Tort law is all about; much less what actions or inactions will cause them to be in violation of Tort law. We are a continuing technologically, evolving world. An injury that could occur now that people would think is entirely accidental and has no possibility of a legal action, still leaves us with an injured person who will never get compensated in any way for his or her injury, but probably at a later date will be discovered to actually have been caused by a foreseeable civil wrong. Moreover, there are injuries that occur that will always be considered an “act of god”, and no Tort law will help the injured party. There is also the fact, that many injured parties have no idea or desire to get compensated for an injury. They just suffer under our present system and are for the most part hidden. (Although the lawyers that run ads on Websites, or on billboards along our highways try to draw these people into their legal spider web.)The biggest problem with Tort law and many other laws, especially class action suits is the following. Lawyers use the law and the implied use of physical force, i.e. prison, to forcibly loot money from our citizenry. They are a totally unnecessary part of our country’s structure. They add a burden of tremendous amounts of wasted money and productivity on the part of both the legal plaintiff and defense side. They add greatly to the burden of the justice system with their endless pretrial motions, depositions, vast burdens of time, mental and physical distress upon the defendants, and costly mainly useless trial time. Often it does not end here, the case can go on to be appealed at the appellate level and then on to a state supreme court, and then sometimes even on to the Federal Level. Even then with all these laws and the massive legal system, injured parties often do not get the compensation they deserve or far too much compensation that all of US citizenry must bear its costs.You also have to consider the incredible loss of very intelligent people who are sold into the idea that being a lawyer is a mostly honorable profession. That creates a huge untapped drain of mental talent that could be far more productive to wealth production in our country, and instead becomes a massive population of wealth drainers.One of the answerers to my question seems to have been one of my colleagues. I practiced OB/GYN for my first year of residency. I can tell you categorically that in the case of Obstetrics, women’s lives are being put at risk because of the fear of a malpractice suit, which I believe is a part of Tort law. Decades ago when I was a resident, our clinic population had a C-section rate of about 8 %. That was because we followed the scientific guidelines of when it was necessary to perform a C-section. The private patients at our hospital had a C-section rate in the low 20’s percentile. I don’t know what the current differential is between a teaching hospital C-section rate and the private patient rate but I am sure it is still very high. C-sections have far higher risk for injury and death to the mother. In point of fact maternal death rates in our nation have been on the rise. Tort law is absolutely killing women in the USA today out of fear of a lawsuit. I know in many other areas of medicine extra unnecessary tests are performed and procedures are done that have no scientific basis but are done out of fear of being involved in a lawsuit.Here is my personal story of a malpractice case that almost destroyed my life.Here was the case. A 60ish year old morbidly obese women with a history of asthma underwent a total knee replacement. I decided to appropriately give the patient a spinal anesthetic and she sailed through the surgery. In the post op care unit the patient received 2mg of Morphine when her spinal was wearing off. The Orthopedic surgeon asked me to give his patient a self-administered morphine pump for postoperative pain relief. I ordered the nurses to setup a pump to deliver a maximum of 2mg of morphine every 20 minutes. This was on the high side of pain delivery, but the patient weighed over 220 pounds and for that weight I decided it was appropriate. The next day the patient was found to be unresponsive but her vital signs were stable. An intensivist (a specialist in intensive care medicine) was called and administered one ampule of narcan, which can reverse a narcotic overdose. The patient still did not respond. There was never a record of respiratory failure. The intensivist gave her three more ampules of narcan, and upon shaking the patient she had some response. She stayed in the ICU for a few days and after a period; she became fully alert, but had a slight residual weakness in a side of her body. The nursing record showed that beside the 2mg of Morphine the patient had received in the recovery room, she had only used the pump once for a total of 4mg of Morphine in about a day or more. This is a very small dose for that amount of time period. Even if is this patient was supersensitive, a full ampule of narcan would have totally reversed its affects. The intensivist put in his records that the patient had received a narcotic overdose (because of the Morphine pump orders, not what actually had been delivered) and had suffered brain injury from lack of oxygen. This was a completely ridiculous diagnosis. Four mg of Morphine over 36 hours would not put anyone in that condition into respiratory failure, and certainly would have been easily reversed with even one ampule of narcan. Besides, the fact, that there was no charted incidence of respiratory depression.Luckily for me there was a law in Florida that a Plaintiff in malpractice lawsuit has to have a pretrial interview with a physician if he suspects that malpractice has occurred. I hired this Lawyer out of the phone book, who looked like a character from a cowboy movie when I arrived back in Florida for my interview. I immediately sized up the plaintiff’s attorney. He was an obvious narcissist. He puffed up his chest and announced to me not only was he a lawyer but he also was a medical doctor. He then went on to pontificate all his tremendous credentials to put me into a state of fear. I played along and played dumb. I am pretty sure since he knew I was a Locum Tenens (a glorified medical term for a temp) that I wasn’t very bright or good at my job. He asked me a series of silly questions, which I pretended I had to think a while and gave very unspecific answers to his questions. Then the key moment came. He asked me if he decided to pursue a lawsuit, how could me to serve me.I practiced Locum Tenens Anesthesia. That meant I did not work full time. I didn’t need the money. I had other interests in life, which I loved to pursue. But for a short period of time when this case occurred I was not covered by malpractice insurance. I had never been informed that there had been any problems with any of my patients. However, there were medical political politics at that hospital. Half of the physician staff was from India or Pakistan. The other half was White, American born and trained Physicians. Both groups hated each other. My staff position tilted the Medical staff into the “White” faction. Silly bullshit like this occurs all over America. That is one of several reasons I didn’t like to work full time. I hate politics. Anyway this is one of the main reasons I stopped working at this Hospital. It is also probably the reason the medical staff tried to pin this event entirely on me. I was the named Defendant.This wasn’t my first rodeo. I told him innocently that he could serve my lawyer. That satisfied him. After I left the room with my lawyer, I told him the moment you hear that he is considering to file suit you call me. He did. I sent an overnight letter to my attorney firing him and telling to him to file with the court that I was no longer his client. My lawyer called me laughing and wishing me good luck on my strategy. I believe that were six other doctors and the hospital as named defendants. My wife at the time had a consulting service and only joined me on my assignments about half the time. For the next eight months, a certified letter attempting service was sent weekly to my home in Chicago. My ex-wife never accepted any of these certified letters as I had instructed her.I was either working in other hospitals all over the country or vacationing, making it impossible for me to be found. My ex-wife was often home and since I was a defendant on the case even though I wasn’t served, she received copies of all the legal correspondence for the case. After eight months, there was a stack of motions and other documents that reached four feet high in our closet. Even after eight months there had not even been one deposition taken. Can you imagine the law bill I would have had from just that amount of legal bullshit?Apparently after eight months, the plaintiff attorney had hired a private detective to find me and serve me. This detective found out my ex-wife’s maiden name. Her maiden name was uncommon. My ex-wife had a father who was a world-renowned expert in Neurology. He was also one of the first Physicians who had broken ranks from his colleagues and was frequently an expert witness in malpractice actions. By coincidence, the Plaintiff’s attorney had used the services of my ex-wife’s father in other malpractice suits. He called my ex-wife’s father and asked him if he knew me. My father-in-law related to me when he found out that this attorney was trying to serve me on this case, he told him that not only would he never be an expert witness on any malpractice case for this lawyer, and he would see to it that no neurologist in the country would ever testify on any of his cases!For the next 6 months the certified letters stopped. But I was still receiving motions and counter motions endlessly. Then my late ex-wife father died at a young age of 60. Two weeks later the certified service letter started to arrive weekly. That lasted a few more months. Then it mysteriously stopped, as did all the other correspondence from the lawsuit that had grown to a stack of paper five feet high. Then I got one last letter from the judge in the case. The judge dismissed the legal action against me because the plaintiff had failed to serve me within the statutory limits. I was off the hook!I put this case off my mind. However, six years later in 2002 I decided to Google myself. I was shocked to find that this case was still going on! This case went on to the supreme court of Florida not once but twice! The case went on for almost ten years until finally the Supreme Court upheld the trial judges decision to dismiss the case because of the contumacious behavior of the plaintiff’s attorney. If I had been an active defendant in this case, just the legal bills would have ruined my life, not to mention being involved in a legal action that lasted that long. Think of the incredible hardship of my poor colleagues being involved in an action that lasted so long. Isn’t it likely that just the stress on their minds from this lengthy lawsuit interfered with their decision-making ability and probably caused second-guessing and incorrect medical therapies?There was a dramatic ending to this story. After losing this lawsuit and all the appeals, the Plaintiff’s lawyer was disbarred. He was found out dipping into client’s award money. Then he lost his medical license after being arrested for illegally prescribing Oxycodone out of motel rooms!Anyway, can you imagine the monumental waste of time on this case by all the doctors and lawyers and the judges on a case that did not even have a whiff of malpractice associated with the case? There were weeks of court time, on the local, appellate and the Florida Supreme Court. This patient had undergone a mild stroke postoperatively. It had nothing to do with the small amount of narcotics that she was administered.Maybe this case was absolutely off the grid as far an average malpractice case. I have no idea. But thank god I outsmarted that lawyer.Again to emphasize this point I am going to repeat myself, Tort lawyers would have you believe that it is only the legal system that would defer harmful behavior. That one can legislate bad behavior away from human beings. This is complete nonsense. Does criminal law prevent criminal behavior? Does the civil law of any kind prevent illegal behavior?I have spent seven years of my life in business. I developed a spectacularly complete computerized accounting system for a specialized industry, the janitorial and window cleaning contracting business. You would think this was a simple business. In many ways it was simple, but Unions, taxes, unemployment compensation insurance, workmen compensation, public liability, equipment, multiple contracts in the hundreds for our company, supervision, costs, supplies, and many other factors made a large contractor such as ours with as many as 3500 employees a nightmare, My software eliminated 2/3 of our accounting department. It gave up to the minute cost accounting and produced user programmable accounting reports. It had many other bells and whistles. But from that experience and then from starting a company that sold this software nationwide, I found that businessmen are just as big of lawbreakers as anyone you could find. They just are usually too smart to get caught. I also managed our self-insured workmen compensation program. It was the cost of the claims made, not the law, that made us be have a safer work place. In other words, yes if someone got injured you had to pay it out of our pocket. That is what changed our behavior, not the threat of a lawsuit.In point of fact, the first time I was sued was also for malpractice! One of my clients who I sold my computer system had already received more on hand and remote teaching then any of my other customers. But he wanted more. This was the last system I had sold, so I had plenty of time to waste at that moment. I told him, I would happily fly back to his office and give him more onsite instruction. But I insisted he pay the outstanding bill of twenty thousand dollars. He refused. I asked my father for advice. Bad idea. He told me to refuse. I said, he is threatening to sue us. My father told me this story.His father had a newspaper, cigarette and candy stand in the roaring twenties. My son saw that sometimes a customer would shoplift. My grandfather saw it too. The shoplifting was very petty and some of these customers were frequent customers and it probably did not cut into his profits by any large amount. But my grandfather told my father that customers like this I don’t need.Anyway, because of this advice I called the customer back and insisted on getting paid before I return. The customer sued my company for malpractice in federal court. My lawyer laughed and said there is no way this person can win. That was when I learned never to believe in lawyers even if they are 100% sure.I had to return to Pennsylvania, spend more money and time and also pay for the lawyer. The judge was 95 years old didn’t know a computer from a stopwatch. The plaintiff’s lawyer totally screwed with this judges brain and won the case. I play ed my next card, I filed for corporate bankruptcy. They personally sued the stockholders, my sisters and brother for $200,000. That was $160,000 more then the buyer had paid for this system. My lawyer said there is no way they can pierce the corporate veil and collect from us personally. He was wrong again!Anyway, I believe that under the system of government that I have outlined in other posts and on my link end site, which I call a Competitive Democracy a multi-tiered insurance system could fully compensate for not only all types of torts but for all risks that a human being can suffer during his lifetime.Just to outline my how things would be under my new constitution, the Federal Government would be restricted to three areas, the military, a much different state department, a greatly expanded justice department, and an enforcement branch. There would be no legislature, no President, no other parts of our present executive branch would exist. There would be several sets of lower Federal courts, each with three judges and requirements for legal representation. One set of courts would exist to monitor the states for violating the rights of our citizens. One set of courts for guaranteeing contracts. One set of courts for upholding and deciding the penalty for criminal actions arising at the state and lower level.One set of courts for deciding insurance awards. The only part of my new Federal government that would be elected would be the Supreme Court Justices. For now, I arbitrarily decided that there would be one Justice elected from each state for an eight-year term. But that is just my initial thought. It could be that the number of justices would have to mirror the population of the states. The Supreme Court would have the responsibility of drafting a common criminal code that would apply to all states. It makes no sense in our country that what is criminal in one state can be noncriminal in an other state. The Supreme Court would be responsible for all other court appointments on the lower levels. It would be responsible for the State department, the only remnant of the old executive branch but even then it would be highly modified. It would be responsible for the enforcement division, which would become an amalgamation of all our present civilian law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies. Foreign intelligence would go back to the military where it really belongs.You see under my system, there will be no state prisons. There will only be county jails, and a citizen can only be held in jail for one month. If a criminal trial takes longer then that, it would be dismissed. Even on the state level, three judges would be requiring for all court actions. There would be no jury system. A criminal verdict would require a unanimous decision by the three judges. This is one of the methods whereby I maximize freedom for our citizenry. Because my competitive Democracy depends on the ability of our citizens to freely move from state to state without hindrance. Therefore I cannot allow a state to imprison anyone. Also there can be no national guard, to prevent the unlikely event of a state seceding from the USA as in the Civil war.Under my system of government the only taxes that can be collected are state income tax on a fixed percentage and state sales tax. There can be no tariffs, no taxes on out of state income or products. No state can collect an award of money or property from another state. There are no property taxes. There can be no confiscation of real property.This means that an insurance system would have to be licensed out at the Federal level. Because if you only had State insurance systems, a person who got an award might not be able to collect if the state insurance company moved all its assets to another state. The reason is that under my system States, municipal and local governments have no legal access to assets outside their states.But here is just one system I think that could work and insure people for anything that can happen to them. First of all we have to stop this parental bullying that our legal system demands that we have. Most of us can think for ourselves and decide what risks we are willing to take and what things we need to insure ourselves against.First off, I totally agree that property owners whether developed property or undeveloped, whether private, rentals, retail, or other commercial real estate, a responsibility for the possible harm that could come from ownership requires mandatory insurance. But do we really need ten years to explore if one incident was malpractice or malicious? You could just force property owners or any other business that sells products to hold an “all harm” policy. That means if anyone is harmed by something that happens to a person on an insured property, whether its falling into a pit, a broken window falling on pedestrians, pollution filling a neighborhood, a bad medical outcome, a product they sell that causes injuries, just about anything, an insurance policy can cover it. If the Insurance Company denies the complaint, then the injured party takes the complaint up to the Federal insurance court. It would only take one out of the three justices to rule in favor of the injured. If it was obvious that the insurance company was being obstructive, the Federal insurance court, which has access to funds across the nation, can fine the Insurance Company for forcing this matter into court. All the Federal Insurance companies will have to pay a fee to the Federal Government to be a backstop in case the awards exceed the Federal chartered insurance companies reserves. But the Federal government will send examiners to make sure that the insurance company has sufficient reserves for all its policies. However, we all know there is always the possibility of another massive hurricane that could deplete a company. That is why you need a Federal Government backstop.In addition, there could exist companies that have a Federal Charter (to backstop in case awards become to massive) that individuals could purchase to pay for any damages that occur in their life. There could be exclusions for anything that the individual feels they don’t need or are willing to take the risk. For example, I am a rock climber. It is a dangerous sport. I could either accept the danger and check off that I wont pay the insure company for the fee to cover this activity, or I could pay a rather high fee for the risk to the insurance of my getting hurt. It would be the choice of every individual in our country to pay for full coverage which the insurance company could itemize extras for dangerous activities.This is just an off the cuff possible market solution. If we truly had an unregulated insurance system with no vicious, unscrupulous lawyers, the free market would develop hundreds of solutions. The free market could create solutions that would fit everyone’s lifestyle and everyone’s budget. I discussed in another answer how I would take care of the extreme poor.

https://freedomofmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/BITE-Model-Handout-9-23-16.pdfLet go through the model and see. Which factors have a bering on Jehovah’s Witnesses.Behavior Control1. Regulate individual’s physical reality#1 is incredibly vague and can mean everything from government building codes to requiring a person live on an isolated compound thus making this a useless factor in determining the harm a group causes.2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates#2 is neutral point. Every parent will obviously want to keep tabs on who their children associate with, perhaps even forbidding association with certain unsavory characters, thus your parents are obviously cult leaders if they ever expressed concerns about who your friends are. The only aspect of this factor that is inherently harmful is isolation. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not isolate people. Quite the contrary we are actually commanded to reach out to people, we do not form isolated communes, we do not encourage or require homeschooling for our children, we do not force people to break off previously held relationships.3. When, how and with whom the member has sex#3 is again incredibly broad. All religions have some restrictions on who a person may have sex with. We demand that our government enforce restriction on who people may have sex with i.e no children, unconscious individuals, nor those who do not consent. Obviously, by this factor every religion and government in existence is a harmful cult.4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles#4 would of course encompass every organization in existence that has dress code. If you are required to wear a uniform, wear a suit and tie, keep your hair short or tied so it doesn’t get stuck in machinery, etc. then you are in a cult according to this factor.5. Regulate diet - food and drink, hunger and/or fasting#5 A number of religion require fasting or abstaining from certain foods. By #5 they are all cults. Doctors may recommend fasting in preparation for surgery or other reasons, thus your doctor is a cult leader. The only way this could be harmful is if the dietary restrictions are forced upon the individual using force or the threat of force or some type of psychological manipulation.6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep#6 is obviously inherently harmful and is a practice that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not participate in.7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence#7 is again inherently harmful and usually couples with other harmful practices. This is not something Jehovah’s Witnesses do. All donation are completely and totally voluntary. No tithes or collections are ever taken and no fees for services are ever exacted.8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time#8 is neutral, vague, and broad. If your boss refuses to give a day off does that mean he is a cult leader? If your boss calls and asks if you come into the office last minute because they are swamped does that make him a Cult leader? If your friend asks if you can help them move on your day off are trying to make you join their cult? According to #8 the answer is yes. We as Jehovah’s Witnesses can take vacations for as long as we want, whenever we want.9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet#9 is what I believe #8 is actually trying to point to. This could be harmful but it could also be benign. to determine which would require delving into specific details. Jehovah’s Witnesses are encourage to be at every meeting we hold, one weekend meeting and one midweek meeting which amounts to about three hours out of the week. We are encourage to spend time preaching how much we spend is up to us. Pioneers are individuals who volunteer to spend 70 hours a month preaching which is far less than a full time job and less than many part time jobs. We are mot required to give massive amount of our time to organizational functions. The second part of #9 is rather strange, “self indoctrination including the Internet” I’m not sure how a person can indoctrinate themselves unless they find what they are researching to make sense to them, and if what they are learning makes sense to them and it was discovered by their own research how can that be harmful? Apparently if you ever did research on a topic on the internet and agreed with what you found you just joined your own cult.10. Permission required for major decisions#10 does not apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses. We do not require the organization’s permission to make any decisions nor do we require the permission of a representative of the organization to make any decisions. We marry who we want to marry, we move where we want to move, we change jobs when we want to change jobs are require no one else has to sign off before we do so.11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors#11 can be harmful but it is also very common in organizations. If you saw a coworker stealing from the company I’m quite sure most companies would want to be made aware of it, does that make them cults? If you ever gave your boss a progress report on a project he assigned you does that mean he is a cult leader? As far as thoughts and feeling Jehovah’s Witness do not have confessionals. You express your concerns to whom ever you wish whenever you wish or not at all. As most denominations of Christianity do we do not approve of sex outside of marriage, drunkenness, or theft. But if witnessed a fellow JW doing these things he is encouraged, not to report it to the elders, but rather to address it with the person directly in line with Jesus directions at Matthew 18:15–17, “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault* between you and him alone.n If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.o 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony* of two or three witnesses every matter*may be established.*p 17 If he does not listen* to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen* even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nationsq and as a tax collector.” Only after confronting the person directly, more than once, should the matter be brought to the elders. Things are dealt with confidentially not publicly so as to protect the individuals involved from receiving a tarnished reputation. This is in no way inherently harmful rather it is common to any organization that requires its members live up to a certain code of honor or conduct.12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative#12 is so broad as to be useless in identifying cults. Every organization has a system of rewards for good behavior; badges, promotions, raises; and punishments for bad behavior; demerits, demotions, fines; that is natural and necessary. Does that make then cults? With Jehovah’s Witnesses exemplary individuals will justly be given the respect and honor they have earned and restriction will be placed on individuals who have earned them as well.13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think#13 is a false dichotomy. In societies throughout history there has been the individual vs collective debate. Which is better is far from being a settled issue. Any organization that consists of more than one person will naturally require that some of their individual preferences be suspended for the good of the group. It is to what extend that suspension is required that makes an organization harmful. As covered in #1–11 the requirement for being one of Jehovah’s witnesses are hardly exploitative or excessive. As far as group think goes what exactly does “group think” mean. Everyone on earth i’m sure agrees that the sky is blue. Does that mean we are all engaged in group think? Most people agree that the earth is round. Does that mean we are engaged in group think? Are Flat Earthers brave pioneers willing to strike against the established world view or are they just wrong? If one has gotten baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses that means they have come to agree with what we teach. That is not “group think” that is the result of a rational, independent human being coming to a reasoned conclusion about how the world works. Whether we are right or wrong, decide for yourself but look into what we actually believe and why before you dismiss us as ‘deluded’.14. Impose rigid rules and regulations#14 Again this is not inherently harmful but rather quite common in organizations. We all are happy that workers in nuclear plants must abide by, “rigid rules and regulations.” The rules of Jurisprudence are likewise, “rigid rules and regulations.” No one would appreciate ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ to be a guideline rather than, “rigid rules and regulations.” As it is there are very few Hard and fast ‘Laws’ that Jehovah’s Witnesses must abide by other than the ones rather common to Christianity in general: no murder, no premarital sex, no theft, no lying, no drunkenness, eat. Most other things are guidelines that we must use our experience and individual conscience to decide how to apply, for example: modest dress and grooming, honorable speech, choice of employment, etc. Nothing we teach in this regard is inherently harmful.15. Instill dependency and obedience#15 is mixed. We do not instill dependency. Rather individuals are encouraged to come stand on their own both materially, emotionally, and spiritually. As an organization we provide support in these matter but each individual is encouraged to provide for themselves whenever possible. Obedience has become dirty word in todays world but the concept is everywhere. Parent expect their children to be obedient and do what is asked of them whether chores or moral guidance. Employers expect employees to be obedient and do the tasks assigned to them. Governments expect citizens to be obedient and follow the Law. Are any of these institutions cults? In like manner Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to be obedient to the guidance they receive from the bible.16. Threaten harm to family and friends#16 is obviously harmful and is something Jehovah’s Witnesses do not do.17. Force individual to rape or be raped#17 is again inherently harmful and something Jehovah’s Witnesses condemn.18. Instill dependency and obedience#18 is #1519. Encourage and engage in corporal punishment#19 is itself controversial. Parent have for centuries used spanking and other forms of corporal punishment to discipline their children. Are they cult leaders? Obviously anything that causes injury or permanent damage is inherently harmful but many parents still believe spanking should be used as a last resort. Jehovah’s Witnesses no where encourage the use of corporal punishment and certainly do not inflict it on membership.As far as behavior control goes #6, #7, #16 and #17 are the only factors that are clearly inherently harmful and none of them apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The rest are either neutral or so broad as to include every organization in existence.Information Control1. Deception:a. Deliberately withhold informationb. Distort information to make it more acceptablec. Systematically lie to the cult memberOpposers and apostates love to say we engage in #1. To refute that statement I would have to list and disprove every deception that we are accused of. In short I will only say that we do not lie. All our sources are named and listed for independent research if that is your desire.2. Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information, including:a. Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, other mediab.Critical informationc. Former membersd. Keep members busy so they don’t have time to think and investigatee. Control through cell phone with texting, calls, internet trackingWe do not engage in the baseline description of #2. No where are we forbidden or discouraged from making use of non-JW media. For #2d see Behavior Control #9. We do not engage in #2e. #2b & c requires elaboration. We are cautioned about the dangers of associating with apostates and apostate literature. The main reasons for this are the lies, misquotes, or distortions of what we actually believe. Have I seen every piece of apostate literature? No, but what I have seen is enough to convince me of the truth of what we are taught about it. As an extension to BC#13. Truth is truth it is not subject to interpretation or difference of opinion. The sky is blue. The earth is round. There is no room for dissent with out falling into falsehood. As it is the elders do not come to my house and rummage through my room, bookshelf, internet history, or phone records to see if I have been reading, listening or associating with apostates. We retain our freedom of choice to do according to our own will.3. Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrinesa. Ensure that information is not freely accessibleb.Control information at different levels and missions within groupc. Allow only leadership to decide who needs to know what and when#3 does not apply to us. We literally go to people’s doors to tell them what we believe. If you don't feel like talking to a person https://www.jw.org/en/ or Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY are freely accessible to you. #3b &c are common to every organization. You provide accounting with an accounting hand book, you provide Human resources with an HR handbook you provide Management with a management hand book. As well you don’t need to know everything that is going on. For example an elder helping a couple dealingg with marital problems is not going to be telling everyone in the congregation, “Brother and Sister Problem are going through a pretty ruff patch. Brother Problem likes to chat with women online and Sister Problem keeps flirting with a coworker.” Keeping that confidential is just basic human decency not cultic behavior. In every organization it is the leader who decide what information should be made public and what should be kept confidential. There is nothing inherently harmful or sinister in that.4. Encourage spying on other membersa. Impose a buddy system to monitor and control memberb.Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadershipc. Ensure that individual behavior is monitored by group#4a does not apply to us. 1 Thessalonians 4:11, “ Make it your aim to live quietlym and to mind your own businessn and to work with your hands,o just as we instructed you,” and 1 Peter 4:15, “However, let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a wrongdoer or a busybody in other people’s matters.” For #4b &c see BC#115. Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including:a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, YouTube, movies and other mediab.Misquoting statements or using them out of context from non-cult sources#5 is so broad that is encompasses nearly every organization in existence. If the organization you belong to makes regular reference to media it publishes you are part of a cult. Obviously #5b falls under #1. We do not engage in it.6. Unethical use of confessiona. Information about sins used to disrupt and/or dissolve identity boundariesb. Withholding forgiveness or absolutionc. Manipulation of memory, possible false memories#6 does not apply to us. We do not enforce or require confessionals and as illustrated in #3 information is kept confidential. #6b is dependent on the situation. A wife refusing to forgive a husband for cheating when he comes home every night with a different girl is very different from refusing to forgive someone who broke your phone, replaced it with the latest edition, paid for an extended warranty and begged you to forgive them. 6c is obviously harmful and is something we do not engage in.In short very few of the factor listed here are plainly inherently harmful and of those we do not engage in them. The rest are either neutral depending on the situation or so broad as to include every organization in existence.Thought Control1. Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as trutha. Adopting the group's ‘map of reality’ as realityb. Instill black and white thinkingc. Decide between good vs. evild. Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)The base line of #1 is so broad as to include every system of knowledge and belief to have ever existed, currently exists, or will exist. Obviously if you do not internalize the tenets of your belief system then it is not your belief system. And if you do not believe that your beliefs are true then why do you believe them? #1a is just another way of saying #1. If you adopt a different belief system that is going to change your worldview, that is the natural consequence of coming to believe something. #1b can be harmful as we understand the right or wrong path is not always easy to discern but be all agree some acts are unquestionably wrong and other are unquestionably good. As referred to in BC#14 we do have a few laws but most things are guidelines that allow for nuance and personal expression.According to #1c every moral code is a sign of cultish behavior. As far as 1d goes our history shows that we are quite the opposite of hostile to outsiders and even persecutors.2.Change person’s name and identity#2 not necessarily harmful but Jehovah’s Witnesses do not engage in it other than that one who become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses will naturally begin to Identify as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.3. Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz wordsIronically #3 is full of cliches and reduces complexities into a platitudinous buzzword. Every field of study will naturally over time develop what is called ‘Technical language’. Science uses technical language, law uses technical language, trades use technical language. There is a joke that plays off of this, “How can you tell the difference between a chemists and a plumber? Ask them to say unionized.” This plays off of the familiarity each profession has with its own technical language. Theology of course uses technical language. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a ‘technical language’. To spell out everything we believe every single time we talk about it would get tedious so we, as human beings naturally do, refer to entire concepts, procedures, and time periods by using smaller easier to express words and phrases. This is natural, common, and harmless.4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts#4 is a bit strange and ties closely to #1c. Apparently is wrong to encourage ‘good and proper thoughts’. Apparently encouraging a depressed person to think about the positive, enjoyable things in their lives is cultish. Encouraging a bigot to let go of his prejudice is cultish behavior. Encouraging an envious person to be content with his own possessions is cultish behavior. The harmfulness of #4 really depends on what the belief system defines as good and proper thoughts. Nothing we teach is inherently harmful.5. Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member#5 Does not apply to us. Not only do we not use hypnotic techies but explicitly condemn them for the reason that your will and consciousness is subjected to the hypnotist.6. Memories are manipulated and false memories are created#6 is inherently harmful and something we do not participate in.7. Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts, including:a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinkingb. Chantingc. Meditatingd. Prayinge. Speaking in tonguesf. Singing or humming#7 is a mixed bag. If something is just flat wrong, like saying the sky is emerald green, the only thing you can do is deny it. We are encouraged to avoid rationalization. Justification really depends on the merits of the argument or explanation made. Wishful thinking is just not good and we do not encourage it rather we encourage people to have their faith founded on solid evidence.We encourage people to research their questions or concerns until they find a satisfying answer. The only time we encourage patience is when a definitive answer cannot be found. We obviously encourage praying, meditating, and singing but so do nearly every religion on earth. We do not practice chanting or speaking in tongues.8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism#8 is another mixed bag. Our method of bible study requires rational analysis of the text and other references as opposed to mysticism and as said before we are encourage to build our faith on real evidence. This entire answer, as you can see, is an exercise in critical thinking. Whether criticism is constructive depends on its delivery and the motive with which it is given. We are all recognized as imperfect and therefore we all have room to improve. Those who voice criticism of the organization, as can be seen in the other answers here, are rarely if ever constructive.9. Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed#9 requires explanation. We allow people to question what we believe when the questions are an effort to acquire information or understand. But as I said before truth is truth. If you disagree with reality then you have fallen into falsehood. If a person does not agree with what we teach they are free to leave if they so choose.10. Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful#10 is related to #9. Every belief system believes in its own superiority to others. After all if you didn’t think what you believe is true why would you believe it?Once again truth is truth. The sky is blue. The earth is round. If you want to refer to Flat earths as holding an ‘alternate belief system’ that is your right but I will call it for what it is, a falsehood. You don’t have to agree with us. We will never force you to. All we ask that you give us a fair hearing before you reject us.In conclusion, of the factors that are obviously inherently harmful, none apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The rest are Either so broad as to encompass every organization on earth or are open to personal interpretation of what is true and what is not.Emotional Control1. Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish#1 depend on the application. Certainly a desire to murder you brother is an evil, wrong and selfish feeling. We rightfully condemn both the wrong act and the feelings that lead up to them. That being said we do not regard all emotion to be harmful only uncontrolled emotion. There is nothing inherently wrong with anger so long as it does not lead to violence, resentment is recognized by psychologists to be harmful to the resenter. Sexual desire is not inherently wrong so long as it is only expressed with one’s marriage mate. Each emotion, like behavior, should be kept with in proper limits. That is natural and far from harmful rather it make civilization possible.2. Teach emotion-stopping techniques to block feelings of homesickness, anger, doubt#2 is so vague that I have no idea what it could be referring to. As said before emotions are not looked down upon as being inherently evil. We are just taught to keep them in check so that they do not motivate wrong doing like, anger leading to murder, or lust leading to rape. We encourage people to find the answers to their doubts or concerns.3. Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s faultTo answer #3 I will quote a scripture that Jehovah’s Witnesses are very familiar with, “Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freelyw even if anyone has a cause for complaint against another.x Just as Jehovah* freely forgave you, you must also do the same.” We recognize that as imperfect people we will at times, “[have] a cause for complaint against another” but we should to settle matters quickly and forgive one another. This means anyone, young or old, new or very experienced. This is sound advice for all relationships and is in no way harmful. Things are not always our fault. We recognize this and accept it but just as Teddy Roosevelt said, “If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month.” If something is your fault or within your power to change that should also be accepted.4. Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such asa. Identity guiltb. You are not living up to your potentialc. Your family is deficientd. Your past is suspecte. Your affiliations are unwisef. Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfishg. Social guilth. Historical guilt#4 like others depends on the situation. Certainly we can all agree there are some acts for which people should feel guilty: Murder, rape, theft. But we do not encourage undo guilt. As Christian we teach that Christ died for the forgiveness of sins thus relieving us of excessive guilt. What each person does in God’s service is left up to them. They are not to be shamed for their choice.5. Instill fear, such as fear of:a. Thinking independentlyb. The outside worldc. Enemiesd. Losing one’s salvatione. Leaving or being shunned by the groupf. Other’s disapproval#5 is again a mixed bag. Fear is natural and protects us from danger. #5a is motioned against us but once again truth is truth. Thinking the earth is flat is independent thinking but we could hardly call it a good thing. Independence from truth is falsehood. We are not taught to fear the outside world. Enemies who wish to cause us harm should be feared for our own safety. A fear of losing one’s salvation is a natural consequence of believing there is a mechanism for salvation. This factor would classify all Christianity as a cult. #5 e builds off of d. f is certainly important for social function. We should disapprove of bad behavior because it reduces the likelihood of that behavior occurring. What behavior should be considered bad depends on what you believe.6. Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner#6 We are encouraged to be kind to each other, our neighbors, and visitor. Call that love bombing if you want we consider it showing human decency. That warmth is extended throughout your life as a witness. It is genuine not a show. And to be clear all of Christianity believe that mankind exists in a sinful state. Therefore by this metric all Christians are part of a cult.7. Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins#7 does not apply to us.8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authoritya. No happiness or fulfillment possible outside of the groupb. Terrible consequences if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc.c. Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and familyd. Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, unspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counselor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and rolle. Threats of harm to ex-member and family#8 depends on your point of view. If we are telling the truth then a fear of turning against it is rational isn’t it? To answer this factor requires that you already know what absolute truth is. Again failing to do what is right leads to consequences so we must determine what is true and right before being able to judge on this factor. c and d both depend on the deceptively simple question, “What is truth?” Should turning your back on it not come with consequences. If someone tells me the sky is green I would question the soundness of their vision and thought processes because that is plainly false. As far e goes we do not threaten anyone.In conclusion, few of these factors are unequivocally inherently harmful and do not apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses. A few more depend on how they are applied and would condemn society as a whole as being a cult. Whether the rest are good or bad depend on what you see as truth.Two conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. One, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a cult and if they are then every single organization on earth is a cult also. Two, Steven Hassan’s BITE model is fundamentally flawed and therefore a useless tool in identifying cults. Few of its factor for judgement are inherently harmful with the rest either being neutral, the harm or benefit dependent on its application, or exists in every organization on earth.Sorry for the long post.