Watchtower's Billion Dollars of Property Cannot Be Sold until Outcome of Conti Appeal (page 15)

mind blown

NOTE: Civil cases are "also" covered at the URL I posted.

I am unclear whether the post from the appellate site was to bolster my statements or repudiate them. People are very hyped up abouit this case. I certainly am. Throughout this thread I see people making the same judgments I did before law school. In fact, I used to give legal advice as a volunteer altho I was told not to do so. After only a few weeks in law school, I was very upset. There was no log of calls so I could not remedy the situation. All I could do was pray that no one relied on me. They probably did, though.

Frankly, I am not clear how it happens. The cases always seemed so clear to me in high school and college. You need to take a range of courses b/c law integrates many areas.This cases involves a knowledge of privilege, negligence, judgments, civil procedure, First Amenment law, and appellate appeals processes, and the Supremacy Clause.

I don't think it is silly to read cases the way people are doing here. Sometimes I wonder if judges should write opinions for the general public rather than only for lawyers. When I do some work representing myself and call the court clerks for simple information, they tell me to hire a lawyer. I never asked for legal advice from them. Mostly, I ask how to file a paper or an email address.

Justice O'Connor is spearheading a movement to make legal info more accessible. TV does not do a good job of showing how law works. Her primary concern is the outrage concerning unpopular decisions. If the general public were taught a few simple concepts, most people would be satified, or so goes the argument. I don't know how other countries teach their citizens. This barrier upsets me greatly. There is so much normal people can do without an expensive lawyer. The present situation concentrates power in lawyers, who often act arrogantly. I don't think it is any accident. Most lawyers would prefer that clients don't know much. It makes the clients easier to handle while increasing their fees.

I wonder if it is so simple. Perhaps I am a lousy teacher.

mind blown

Band, are you a working Atty or teacher of law? You say "This cases involves a knowledge of privilege, negligence, judgments, civil procedure, First Amenment law, and appellate appeals processes, and the Supremacy Clause."

One also can include street smarts, intuition, intellegence, skill, open mind, detective, and observer= does not make an arrogant atty.

1. Privileg= No. Due to california privilege code clauses.

2. Negligence=Yes

3. Judgments = Yes

4. Civil Prcedure=Yes

5. First Amendment=No. Due to california privilege code clause WTS falls through and foundation of case not a religious (laws were broken)

6. Applellate Appeals Process=Yes

7. Supremacy Clause=Yes. Each State mandates it's codes under and by the law.

The WTS has made regulations of conduct which implicate themselves. I can only hope which way the law will side.

I'm also in hopes one day, religious practice which is deemed harmful due to human rights issues as well as what's deemed abusive by 21st society( by future laws) will be outlawed....in which case the First A and Constution is still in place as long as no one is seriously harmed by law....

Band on the Run

Well, I practice law but teaching also appeals to me. These issues are involved and more. It is clear that First Amendment issues arise when a state decides that confession must include items that are traditionally Roman Catholic in orgin. Frankly, I don't know the law in this b/c I will not spend hours reading it for free. The issue is clearly present. I love that people with no expertise in law are so emphatic that I am wrong.

This is not my case. I have no duty to research and post analysis here. This thread has convinced me that many peopole justr want to hear what they want to hear even if it is to their probable detriment. I would debate you on a legal forum.. This forum is not one.

Life is not so simple. Neither is the law. My point was that reading cases without a wide background in law can lead to erroneous perceptions. No one is dissing the lawyer. I would question from anyone whether their legal skills were so astounding or if they had the luck to find a generous judge and willilng jury. Time will tell.

There is more than a possibility that the verdict may be overturned on appeal. I don't want that outcome. It is better to recognize the possibly now rather than have undue elation turn into strong sorrow.

I am willing to list my credentials in a way that does not idenitify me if you are willing to post your credentials.

The privilege area is problematic besides First Amendment law. California was not a mandatory reporting state for clergy in nonconfession areas at the time of this site. The WT could reasonably conclude that it had no legal duty to warn the congregation. From what I've read in a casual manner, the privilege for confessoin remains to this day. Any other area of clergy work is now subject to mandatory reporting.

Dont' shoot the messenger. I am only reporting. Besides, I make a point of not researching legal topics here. If I don't know, I can't give legal advice. It doesn't stop other people, though, who aren't even lawyers.

mind blown

Did I give you camletoe by my questions? I was actually sincere.

You will have to go toe to toe with Rick Simons as these are his words and issues not mine. I'm not making sweeping, arrogant nor ignorant bold statements without facts from someone who is as "experienced" as Conti's atty.

As far as your credentials? I think you've flaunted your paper wisdom enough for me to know a "good atty" is as good as the "total" sum of a package.

mind blown

And since you brought up credentials, what is your specialty?

Band on the Run

Const'l law for the passion and antitrust litigation to earn a living.

lepavoux

My Oxford Dictionary states that one billion is 1000 million.

The $28 million awarded to Candice Conti therefore is a very small amount having in mind that the Watchtower maybe worth $1 billion.

Besides they have property and money all over the world additional to the United States.

So it will be a long time before they are broke, sad to say!

cedars

lepavoux - nobody's suggesting that this Candace Conti verdict will make the Watchtower "broke" as you put it - at least I'm certainly not promoting that idea myself. However, nobody can deny that the Society has been downscaling its operations for some time now. Magazine printing commitments have been halved since 2005, and last year saw an unprecedented 16% drop in the number of branches worldwide. Such downscaling doesn't befit an organization that is overflowing with spare cash. Rather, quite the reverse picture is painted by these drastic cutbacks.

Yes, the Watch Tower Society and its many legal entities still HAVE money, but they are finding money harder to come by because growth is slowing down in wealthier, more developed countries that are the principle source of donations. This has led to some remarkably bold strategies to increase funds, such as installing credit card facilities at assembly halls and (so it is said) even dabbling in hedge funds!

Yes, $28 million is a small fraction of $1 billion, but it will still hurt the Society to lose that sum of money, because once it is gone it will be harder than it once was to replace it.

See my blog articles on the decline of the Watch Tower Society if you haven't read these already.

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/branch-closures-and-fire-sales-a-growing-trend-for-the-society

http://jwsurvey.org/general-information/what-does-the-future-hold-for-the-watch-tower-society

Cedars

Gayle

It would take about '35' more abuse victims awarded as Ms. Candace was, for the WTS to lose that $1B.

Watchtower's Billion Dollars of Property Cannot Be Sold until Outcome of Conti Appeal

Share this