Announcement: Another favorable court ruling regarding Napa County lawsuit

AndersonsInfo

I'm thrilled to tell you about the latest court decision made in California a few days ago which Kimberlee Norris said would be announced today, Monday, on JWD.
On July 3rd, I started a thread where the last two rulings in the Napa County, California lawsuit, Charissa W. v. Watchtower, New York, et al., were posted. Both decisions were favorable to the Plaintiff. See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/116108/1.ashx.
One of these decisions was a RULING ON SUBMITTED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS where the Plaintiff's motion was GRANTED and filed on September 29, 2005.
On June 28, 2006, Attorney for Defendant Watchtower, Robert J. Schnack, of Sacramento, CA, submitted a Petition For Writ Of Mandate to the Court of Appeal of the State Of California, First Appellate District, which consists of nearly forty pages of material, and where the Defendants' attorney claimed that the trial court erred when it granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel because "discovery violates a privilege."
Surprisingly, not months later, or a year later, but just a little over a week later, on July 6, 2006, the Court of Appeal filed a decision. We are happy to announce that California's Court of Appeal DENIED the Watchtower attorney's petition for a writ of mandate.
What does this mean? It all comes down to this: Another CA court has ruled that Defendants' documents are not protected by the penitent-clergy privilege. Consequently, Watchtower has to produce the documents demanded by the plaintiffs' that passed between the judicial committee and the Watchtower regarding the perpetrator.
Tomorrow, on this thread, it is our hope that a link will be made available for all those desiring to read Attorney Schnack's Petition For Writ Of Mandate, which I might add is extremely interesting even to a lay person like me.
Barbara

TooOpinionated

Great news, Barbara! Thanks for letting us know.

I can't wait to read the link.

Teresa (of the I"ve been checking for this all day class!)

sf

Oh snap! {I'm really loving this phrase}

Now I can have sweet dreams tonight. Wonder what TEDDY dreams about these days. Hmmmmm

sKally

LDH

Another CA court has ruled that Defendants' documents are not protected by the penitent-clergy privilege.

Of course not. There is no formal training required nor expected to be a 'clergy' in the Jehovah's Witness church! The bulk of the elders are men with menial jobs who have no respect in the real world.

Great news.

Momofmany

Thank you for letting us know. Can't wait for tomorrow.

Wasanelder Once

Thanks to you too. This is much bigger than the "Big" news of earlier this year. This is something that teeth can bite into.

Go Napa go!

W.Once

IT Support

Good morning!

This is the link to Watchtower's Petition for Writ of Mandate (June 28, 2006, PDF file, 2Mb).

This is the link to the Court's Denial of Writ (July 6, 2006, PDF file, 32k)

(Note: the pages in each PDF file are on their side, but will print out okay. To view on your screen more easily, click the 'Rotate Counterclockwise' button on your Adobe Reader toolbar.)

The link to Barbara's previous thread is Napa Valley, CA Child Abuse Court Case Victories.

Edited to add:

Link to Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summons (October 5 2005. PDF file, 668k), and

Link to Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Documents (September 29 2005, PDF file, 462k).

Ken (of the Let's Bring Them All Together class)

Dismembered

Greetings Barbara,

Nothing like a good report from a distant land. Thanks again Barbara.

LDH,

:The bulk of the elders are men with menial jobs who have no respect in the real world.

Amen to that Lisa.

Dismembered

hubert

Can this decision be appealed and overturned, or is this now "Set in Stone"?

Hubert

candidlynuts

Watchtower has to produce the documents demanded by the plaintiffs' that passed between the judicial committee and the Watchtower regarding the perpetrator.

i hope these documents still exsist! this is a big ruling!

Announcement: Another favorable court ruling regarding Napa County lawsuit

Share this