Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall 98 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sir82
A link would be helpful.
-
DesirousOfChange
(Hopefully) the following link will take to to where the docs are available to view.
The first five highlighted links are to the WTS request.
The middle ones are the Defendant's attorneys arguments against WTS request.
The last ones are the Court's decision.
To summarize, WTS requested to substitute the Patterson NY Educational Center property as collateral for the Bond in the Conti case, in lieu of the bond they were to purchase from Travelers and the cost (reportedly) of $86,000. Additionally, they petitioned that they only be required to bond the value of the original judgement and not the punitive damages. ($4million vs $11million).
Conti's attorneys appeals this request, citing CA statues that the Court had no jurisdiction to approve either request.
As a result, the Court denied both requests by the WTS, and the WTS must post a cash bond (or bond from an insurance company) for the full amount of the judgement.
This round surely did NOT go the way of the WTS.
Doc
-
sir82
Conti's attorneys appeals this request, citing CA statues that the Court had no jurisdiction to approve either request.
As a result, the Court denied both requests by the WTS
So is the WTS really stupid, not understanding California law?
Or were they hoping the judge was really stupid, not knowing California law?
Either way, it look like they got a bunch of nitwits on their legal team.
-
DesirousOfChange
So is the WTS really stupid, not understanding California law?
It can't hurt to ask!
I think their greatest fear is that IF the case is overturned on appeal, they will be out the cost of putting up the bond with Travelers Insurance as the defendant Candice Conti is surely unable to reimburse them for the expense (and they likely expect it to be overturned, based on the argument that they (WTS) should not be held responsible for the actions of a man who was not an employee or officer (Elder/MS/Etc) of the Church).
I think I read that the cost of the bond is $86,000 (one time or annual -- can anyone answer that?)
Regardless, once WTS pays the premium to the insurance company, it cannot be recovered from the insurance company even if they are successful in their in overturning the decision. It is a FEE for the insurance company putting $11million at risk (though insurance companies really take NO risk in it, as surely WTS is guaranteeing the bond with assets).
If the appeal takes 2 years, it appears they are on the line for an additional $500K minimum or so, counting bond fee, interest (1%-2%), additional attorney fees. I guess they figure that is worth the chance of having it overturned and having to pay out $11million in cash, and most of all once a precedent is set, all the other abuse cases waiting in the wings will flood in. Obviously hoping the Big A comes within the next 2 years and makes this problem go away.
Doc
-
Ultimate Reality
Is this actually the court's decision or are these copies of the proposed request with a possible ruling on November 8?
-
Justitia Themis
From another thread; click the link to se e other portions of the California Code and the CA. Practice Guide on Stays and Supersedeas.
The question I have is whether the property can be used since real property is not one of the “acceptable securities” listed in CCP s 995.710(a), OR if it is allowed, whether it is restricted to California real property. Unfortunately, I am buried in school, and I will not be able to research this for weeks.[7:118] Acceptable securities: Appellant's deposit may be made, in whole or in part, by any of the following types of securities (CCP s 995.710(a)):
* Federal or California bearer bonds or notes (CCP s 995.710(a)(2) (see P 7:118.1));
* Certificates of deposit (not exceeding the federally insured amount) made payable to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(3));
* Savings accounts (not exceeding the federally insured amount) assigned to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(4));
* Savings and loan association investment certificates or share accounts (not exceeding the federally insured amount) assigned to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(5)); and/or
* Credit union certificates for funds or share accounts (not exceeding the federally insured amount) assigned to the court (CCP s 995.710(a)(6)).
-
-
tresdecu
marking
-
wha happened?
I suppose they are hoping on a more favorable ruling over the next 2 years. However, with the news about Penn State employee indictments and what's gone on with the Boy Scouts, it's wishful thinking at best