Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"

by cedars 147 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Without reading your blog, I see several "errors" that show this is not a neutral analysis. The biggest hurdle will be solely on a legal issue, not a factual one. Did the WT have a legal duty to inform congregants (whatever we used to be. we are not witnesses. whatever) at the time of the abuse. The fact that the CA state legislature later enacted a statute requiring mandatory reporting for clergy is troublesome.

    Similar to UNthank, Conti has already won the battle. Nothing the WT can do, even if it prevails on appeal, can undo the wretched publicity. My mind still reels at the in court statement of the WT lawyer after hearing the clear and highly punitive statement from a jury of peers that the WT was shocked at Bethel. Yep, a jury vs. some knuckleheads at Brooklyn.

    Appellate lawyers are routine, at least in my area.

    If Conti prevails legally, which is a technical legal argument, CA is so large and so important, I can see "new light" on the "two witness" rule.

    In my view, the WT has lost even if its wins on a legal technicality. The verdict was not decided by former Witness apostates. I am troubled by how the verdict so far seems to have changed little on the ground.

    ONe of my life problem's was not being able to understand the Witnesses. The Catholic Church at least paid lip service, started special committees, issued apologies (and still priests criminally protected priest pedophiles).

  • cedars
    cedars

    Band on the Run

    this is not a neutral analysis

    Did you expect a neutral analysis?! lol

    Did the WT have a legal duty to inform congregants (whatever we used to be. we are not witnesses. whatever) at the time of the abuse. The fact that the CA state legislature later enacted a statute requiring mandatory reporting for clergy is troublesome.

    This point was raised in the recent appeal by the Watchtower legal team, but didn't seem to get them very far.

    In my view, the WT has lost even if its wins on a legal technicality.

    I agree completely.

    I am troubled by how the verdict so far seems to have changed little on the ground.

    Give it time! Stuff's cookin'!

    Great to have you back by the way. You've been missed.

    Cedars

  • flipper
    flipper

    CEDARS- Very well written article ! Well done. Candace is lucky to have such a devoted mom who is supporting her through thick and thin through this. I hope what Kathleen mentions is correct- that many other child abuse cases are coming down the pike against the WT society. It's high time for this organization to answer for their criminal negligence

  • cedars
    cedars

    A quick update...

    It appears the Watchtower Society has put up a bond of just over $17 million.

    Here is the link...

    http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=jsp/complitcase.html&currBatchNbr=1&caseID=4907803&CaseNbr=HG11558324

    Click on "Register of Actions", scroll down to the final document on page 1, the relevant pages are 2 and 9.

    Cedars

  • sir82
    sir82

    I thought the ruling on the amount was just in the ~11 million range?

    Does the 17 million indicate how much they expect the interest to accumulate while the appeals process stretches out?

    I'm not aware of what exactly is entailed in "putting up a bond of 17 million" - I've had scant reason to do so! Does that mean that the WTS had to deposit 17 milion of their own funds, making them unavailable, in order to secure the bond?

  • cedars
    cedars

    Does that mean that the WTS had to deposit 17 milion of their own funds, making them unavailable, in order to secure the bond?

    Yes that's how I read it.

    Does the 17 million indicate how much they expect the interest to accumulate while the appeals process stretches out?

    Yes, the ruling stands at just over $11 million, so I'm not sure of how the bond figure's been calculated. I can't see how interest would be included when they're not sure how long the appeals process will run for.

    Cedars

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    The appeal judge may increase the award above the $11M.

    George

  • flipper
    flipper

    BTTT, Peace out, Mr. Flipper

  • 144001
    144001

    The title of the article, "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On" is a false statement concerning the case. The WTBTS filed its notice of appeal on 9/20, and a notice of an undertaking (basically a bond) was filed by the WTBTS on 9/21. Obviously, the appeal has not been heard yet, which makes the article title entirely false. No appeal in this case has been heard by any court.

    The WTBTS was partially successful in its post trial motions. The motion for judgment notwitstanding the verdict ("JNOV") was denied, but the court did grant the WTBTS' motion for a new trial on a conditional basis. The court bought the WTBTS argument that the jury awarded excessive punitive damages, and conditionally ordered a new trial on the issue of punitive damages in the event that Ms. Conti did not agree to a significant reduction in the punitive damages award ("remittitur"). Ms. Conti did accept the court's remittutur so there will not be a new trial on the issue of punitive damages.

    A motion for a new trial or a motion for JNOV are not the same as an appeal; not even close. New trial motions and motions for JNOV are rarely granted, so the reality is, the decision made by the court on the two motions is not newsworthy. What is newsworthy is the trial and verdict itself, both of which, even after reduction by remittitur, are impressive.

    I don't want to be a pessimist, but this case is far from over. The WTBTS filed an "undertaking," which means that Ms. Conti and her lawyers are precluded from taking any action to collect the judgment until the appeal is completed. The appellate process is expensive, and Mr. Simons is facing a major, national law firm (i.e., Jackson Lewis)with great experience in the appeals process. Ms. Conti and her lawyers have done well so far, but one would be pretty foolish to underestimate the hurdles they are facing.

  • cedars
    cedars

    144001

    The title of the article, "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On" is a false statement concerning the case. The WTBTS filed its notice of appeal on 9/20, and a notice of an undertaking (basically a bond) was filed by the WTBTS on 9/21. Obviously, the appeal has not been heard yet, which makes the article title entirely false. No appeal in this case has been heard by any court.

    My use of the word "appeal" in this case relates to the denial of a "judgment notwithstanding verdict" (JNOV), or an appeal from the Watchtower for the judge to overrule the jury verdict. I assumed this was obvious. I'm sorry you find it misleading. Please bear in mind that I write my articles to be understood by everyone, not just those with a legal background who understand what JNOV is. However, I will create a footnote in my article to explain that the title refers to the motion for JNOV being denied to reflect your observation, which I appreciate.

    I don't want to be a pessimist, but this case is far from over.

    That is my understanding too, and this is reflected in the article. However, the fact that the Watchtower attorneys seem hopelessly detached from the seriousness of the issues involved, as demonstrated thus far, gives good reason for hope of a successful outcome for Candace. If you need any reminder of just how "out of touch" the Watchtower lawyers are, I would encourage you to watch the YouTube videos of Rick Simons recounting the case - specifically the part where the WT lawyers are questioning Candace over the number of times she suffered abuse.

    The appellate process is expensive, and Mr. Simons is facing a major, national law firm (i.e., Jackson Lewis)with great experience in the appeals process. Ms. Conti and her lawyers have done well so far, but one would be pretty foolish to underestimate the hurdles they are facing.

    Ms Conti and her team are by no means naive to the hurdles ahead of them, and I would suggest that anyone who assumes that they are without being aware of their plans are themselves being "foolish". FYI, my understanding is that Jackson Lewis is a law firm that specializes in appellate law for plaintiffs. The last time I checked, Watchtower was NOT the plaintiff in this case. And please don't assume that Rick Simons will be the only lawyer fighting for Candace during the appeal.

    Cedars

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit