<<<< 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.>>>>
Why stop there? Why not post an article about the WTBTS admitting that it's been operating a scam for more than a century, and then footnoting it that what really happened is that someone who is a rank and file JW made that admission?
The title of the article is dishonest. Period. No appeal has been heard by the court yet. Motions are not appeals.
<<<< 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.>>>>
Really? And what do you know about the WT attorneys? Losing the case does not mean they are "hopelessly detached from the seriousness of the issues involved," and I've seen nothing else that supports this conclusion.
<<<< 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.>>>>
Mr. Simons has won a hard fought battle against these lawyers that took years to fight. He is an advocate, and by definition, he is not objective. Unless we can read the deposition transcripts or watch a videotaped deposition, Mr. Simon's recounting of the deposition is not without question. Moreover, the questions asked at a deposition are intended to be very broad and far in excess of the scope of questions that are used at trial. Judging the WT lawyers over a few deposition questions is naive.
<<<<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.>>>>
I have certainly not referred to Mr. Simons or anyone on his team as "naive." They were brilliant and they beat a very large, successful law firm. But there are a lot of comments on this forum that demonstrate that there are many here who are in fact naive about the realities facing Ms. Conti and her counsel. Your comments about the Jackson Lewis firm illustrate my point. They don't "specialize" in appellate law for plaintiffs; they practice appellate law for both plaintiffs and defendants, and appellate law is not their specialty; they do it all.
I have never assumed, suggested, or implied that Rick Simons will be the only lawyer fighting for Ms. Conti on her appeal. I'm confident that he did not work alone in obtaining the judgment he obtained, and now that he has a large judgment, it will be easy to find sidekicks to assist him in fighting the appeals. That will help, but it won't lessen the opponent he is facing or the substantial resources that they bring to the table.
It's nice to be optimistic, but false information leads to false hopes. The WTBTS has not lost any appeals, and has actually achieved more success in its post trial motions than most losing defendants do. The title of your blog is false. Period.
