Patterson on the line: Watchtower claims that paying cash bond would cause “immediate irreparable harm and hardship”

by cedars 339 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  cedars

  Thanks for the kind words everyone.

  I do understand those who say this MUST be some kind of ploy, and the Society CAN'T be that broke. I've wrested with these thoughts myself. However, it all boils down to this question....

  If the Watchtower ISN'T broke, and has a spare $17.3 million to deliver for the bond, then what possible motive does it have to offer Patterson, it's foremost "educational center", as a surety instead (with the world looking on)? I keep asking myself that question, and I can't think of any motive whatsoever - other than that they truly are broke as hell.

  Cedars
• 

  NeverKnew

  Posted this on another thread, but figured I should copy it on this one too. :)

  Yes, it's a legal manuever. It's what is supposed to happen. They are playing chess. That's why you hire attorneys.

  BUT GUESS WHAT EVERYONE GETS????? MORE INFO!!!!! The plaintiff's refusal to agree to these terms was a great decision!

  As a result of the refusal, the WT will have to supply the Courts with MORE financial documents to prove their claim of being broke (which, btw, will become part of the public record)! I love it! MORE EXPOSURE!

  I would hate to have to weed through all of the legal names the WT leverages. I suspect that money is parsed out into "safe haven" subsidiaries of a parent company that were legally established so the financial records of say the real estate holding subsidiary (or subsidiaries) are separate from, say, the financial records of the publishing company subsidiary. Drilling down further, there could be multiple subsidiaries of a primary real estate holding subsidiary (that is held, in name only, as the parent company of the mini-subsidiaries). As a corporation, this protects your money. I do believe that the WT legal team has "reallocated" funds into other pots and this is certainly known by the plaintiff's legal team. BUT, while the plaintiff's don't have the legal leverage to require financial records to prove the claim - the Courts WILL have the leverage!

  Go Plaintiffs!!!!!!
• 

  sabastious

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qniy8aDSFLA

  -Sab
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I'm going to post my reply from the other thread here too. I think we may be getting the wrong end of the stick.

  I've been thinking and reading up a little more, seeing as I'm not au fait with all this legal stuff.

  In line with what DOC said, and to correct what I initially said, the $86,000 bond premium is supposed to be refunded to the appellant if he wins. The premium is some kind of insurance so that, on a successful appeal, all the cash put up for the bond is recovered - $17.2 million in the WTS's case. No harm done. However, the successful appellant should also be able to recover the $86,000 premium BUT this would have to be from the losing party! It's unlikely Candace would be in a position to pay up.

  To avoid potentially losing 86 grand unnecessarily, they want all this bond business, the substitution of property as surety OR a reduction in the bond amount (I'm guessing at least a $86,000 reduction!), done and dusted before the premium is due. That, I think, is what is meant by "irreparable harm and hardship" (a standard legal term?) if the motion isn't decided on quickly - NOT that the WTS is claiming financial difficulty.

  In other words, the guarantee of paying damages is there for the plaintiff if they lose on appeal (so they argue), but if they win on appeal, how are they going to recover all that's due to them? They can't. On the other hand, if they put up their property as surety, then if they win on appeal, they don't have to chase the plaintiff for the 86 grand - the lein on the property is then cancelled.

  Does that make sense?
• 

  cedars

  I answered you on the other thread, but here goes!!

  AnnOMaly - yes, I wondered for quite some time exactly what was meant by the "irreparable harm and hardship" statement, but if you read on in the documentation it sounds like the payment of the premium is the "road to no return", and the payments of the full bond begin shortly thereafter. Note where they say that, if the hearing was delayed until January, the bond payments would already have started by then.

  Cedars
• 

  00DAD

  Well of course we're all speculating as to the exact financial situation of the WTBTS, but given the choice between paying a CA$H bond and pledging property as surety anyone would pledge the property.

  If they got their request, they wouldn't have to fork over any hard cash and can continue to do business as usual.

  It actually makes perfect sense from both a legal and financial standpoint, just not from a moral one .... hmmmm, how 'bout that?

  00DAD
• 

  cedars

  00DAD - Still, it's a high stakes gamble. If they lose - Candace Conti gets Patterson!!

  Cedars
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I added a bit to my post, by the way. Now I'll read your replies ...

  ... Candace gets Patterson - LOL! A small corner of it perhaps, but still ...
• 

  00DAD

  Cedars: If they lose - Candace Conti gets Patterson!!

  It don't think that's correct. What I understood from your JWSurvey article was that the property was offered as surety in lieu of cash bond.

  If they eventually lose, they would of course have to pay the $$$$ award. But I do not believe they'd be forced to sell their precious property in a fire sale unless they could NOT at that time come up with dollars to pay the judgement. Any legal experts care to comment.

  But it doesn't matter because Candace Conti declined the WT's offer.

  BTW, how come Jehovah isn't bailing them out of this? Where is he?

  00DAD
• 

  cedars

  00DAD - doesn't surety mean that, if they can't stump up the cash, the property is handed over instead?

  If they CAN stump up the cash - why not pay it? Either way, Patterson is being used like chips on a gambling table.

  By the way, I'm genuinely appreciative of this discussion. I'm no legal expert either.

  Cedars