Candace Conti's Sur-Reply is Very Effective

by DNCall 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DesirousOfChange

  mention that the WT appears to have sent their "B Team" of lawyers to this case,

  Are these lawyers from the WTS "staff"?

  Or, are they "brothers" from the CA area that typically volunteer their services for WTS when needed?

  The BEST trial lawyers are usually very intelligent (it's not luck), are successful financially, earning big bucks, and I can't see them converting to JWs. So, was WTS represented by a bunch of inexperienced, only-moderately-successful JW dunder-head attorneys who were in way over their head before they even started (compared to Rick Simons team)?

  Profile on Rick Simons

  Rick Simons has been named one of "California's Top 100 Attorneys" by the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He is considered one of the bestEast Bay lawyers in America*. Personal Injury Attorney, Rick Simons, has been a Northern California Super Lawyers (**) in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Rick was also named 2006 Attorney of the Year by California Lawyer magazine. He was elected 1998 President of The Consumer Attorneys of California by his fellow trial attorneys, and was the host of the nationally broadcast radio show "The Consumer Rights Network".

  In 2004, Mr. Simons was appointed "Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel" in the Coordination Proceedings involving Northern California cases arising from sexual abuse of children by priests of the Roman Catholic Church and other clergy. Mr. Simons was co-counsel for more than 125 of those victims, and the work he did alongside other members of the legal team representing these abuse survivors has resulted in over $150 million dollars in settlements and awards. Mr. Simons has obtained large jury verdicts, arbitration awards, and settlements for dozens of clients in cases involving wrongful death, medical malpractice, injuries from defective products, and many other fields. He has worked as Attorney for Plaintiffs in cases decided by both the California Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeal, as well as being lead Counsel in trials in the United States District Court and the Superior Courts of many California counties. Mr. Simons is a graduate of the University of California and its nationally ranked law school, Boalt Hall (1976).

  Should WTS have spent their money more wisely up-front and hired a high-dollars, experienced trial lawyer? Seems like their team was out-matched.

  Still...... there is the appeal, and the Fat Lady is yet to sign her final note.

  Doc
• 

  mind blown

  I'm not sure even with a good atty these days the WTS would be able to get out of this......

  http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.pdf

  California

  Cal. Penal Code § 11166(d)(1)-(2) (LexisNexis through 2010 Reg. Sess.)

  A clergy member who acquires knowledge or reasonable suspicion of child abuse during a penitential communication is

  not required to make a report. For the purposes of this subdivision, ‘penitential communication’ means a communication

  intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in

  the course of the discipline or practice of his or her church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed

  to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or practices of his or her church, denomination,

  or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.

  Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to modify or limit a clergy member’s duty to report known or suspected

  child abuse when a clergy member is acting in some other capacity that would otherwise make the clergy member a

  mandated reporter.

  On or before January 1, 2004, a clergy member or any custodian of records for the clergy member may report to an

  agency specified in § 11165.9 that the clergy member or any custodian of records for the clergy member, prior to

  January 1, 1997, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, other than during a

  penitential communication, acquired knowledge or had a reasonable suspicion that a child had been the victim of sexual

  abuse that the clergy member or any custodian of records for the clergy member did not previously report the abuse to

  an agency specified in § 11165.9.

  This paragraph shall apply even if the victim of the known or suspected abuse has reached the age of majority by the

  time the required report is made.

  The local law enforcement agency shall have jurisdiction to investigate any report of child abuse made pursuant to this

  paragraph even if the report is made after the victim has reached the age of majority.

  ************************************************************************

  Edit: also the definition of penitential communication is only between two people, the confessor and one clergy member, anyone else or more then three is void. Also if not clearly stated it is under penitential communication before penitential communication is also void.

  http://forum.freeadvice.com/marriage-domestic-partnerships-other-family-law-matters-45/clergy-confidentiality-47138.html

  *******************************

  New laws are now underway throughout the USA:

  http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/2012-child-abuse-mandatory-reporting-bills.aspx
• 

  Diest
• 

  Refriedtruth

  What is the definition of a sur-reply?

  ANS-A legal document such as a motion is filed by one side (filing party) requesting the court to enter an order such as to summarily dismiss the case. The other side (responding party) responds to the motion. The filing party then replies to the responding party's response. Some courts allow the responding party to then file a sur-reply to the filing party's reply to the responding party's response.
• 

  DNCall

  It has been posted elsewhere that attorney Shenack is not a Witness. In hiring outside cousel, Watchtower could have engaged a more experienced firm for this type of litigation, but they didn't.
• 

  mind blown

  http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx

  A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were "clearly erroneous."

  The court of appeals decision usually will be the last word in a case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

  Appeals are decided by panels of three judges working together. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in writing, in a document called a "brief." In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that its decision should be reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the "appellee," tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any error made by the trial court was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.

  Although some cases are decided on the basis of written briefs alone, many cases are selected for an "oral argument" before the court. Oral argument in the court of appeals is a structured discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges focusing on the legal principles in dispute. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present arguments to the court.

  The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.

  A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal. When the Supreme Court hears a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court may hear oral argument.
• 

  Splash

  Do we know about this yet?

  Splash
• 

  S EIGHT

  There's nothing new on the court website.
• 

  Refriedtruth

  just checking in-refriedtruth
• 

  DNCall

  According to the most recent Case Management Order, the Court's decision is due on or before August 25 (Saturday). Look for something the beginning of next week.