| what is the advantage of an oral argument over written? | |
| sir82 |
I am asking the same question. How about Simon doing the same?
Scott77
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
-
Scott77
-
144001
Oral arguments are allowed by a subtantial majority of California courts (some demand written arguments only - it's up to the judge to set the policy for his/her courtroom), and no special permission is needed for this. It's oral evidence that is generally not allowed unless the court gives special permission, as occurred here. In other words, it's ok for lawyers to argue the motion, but the court wants any substantive evidence that is presented by the lawyers to be in written form, not oral testimony.
The WTBTS claims that the witness will be a representative of the WTBTS qualified to speak about the past and present history of Patterson, its appraised value, and the WTBTS' future plans for Patterson.
As for Simons, there would be no reason for him to introduce oral testimony. His argument is a legal one that does not require the introduction of any evidence whatsoever. He is simply arguing that the law does not allow the substitution that the WTBTS is requesting, or the reduction in the bond amount. Based on some very limited research I did on Simons claims, it appears that his argument is a good one.
Nevertheless, there's no need for anyone to be concerned about this issue. Even if the court grants the WTBTS' motion, Conti's judgment will be more than adequately collateralized. No matter how the court rules, Conti will not collect anything until she either settles with the WTBTS or the appeal and this case is resolved in one way or another, so this is not a huge issue for Conti, as it will neither help nor hinder her in collecting her judgment.
Edited to add: One more point, to clarify the situation, Simons will indeed be presenting oral argument in court tomorrow. But he will not be seeking to introduce any oral testimony by witnesses, as the argument he will be making does not require the introduction of any evidence at all.
-
-
sir82
The WTBTS claims that the witness will be a representative of the WTBTS qualified to speak about the past and present history of Patterson, its appraised value, and the WTBTS' future plans for Patterson.
I still don't get it.
Why does that knowledgeable witness have to speak to give his evidence? Is a tongue of fire going to appear over his head?
-
144001
The WTBTS reply papers are available now. Essentially, their argument is that the relevant law, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.710 includes the following provision:
" (d) The officer may prescribe terms and conditions to implement this section."
In my opinion, the WTBTS argument is devoid of merit. I spent only a small amount of time researching this issue and found no cases that support an interpretation of the aforementioned provision as allowing the Court to ignore well-established rules of statutory construction and allow substitution of real estate for the bond.
The WTBTS is represented by a huge law firm with significant legal resources that most definitely put in far more time researching this issue than I did. Their failure to cite any cases that support the intepretation of the above-quoted provision of the law means that there are most likely no cases that support the WTBTS interpretation of the code.
Nevertheless, the WTBTS made the best argument it could under the circumstances. They have a chance to prevail on this motion, but I think it is very likely that the WTBTS' motion to substitute Patterson for the bond will be defeated.
-
144001
Sir82:
Only the WTBTS lawyers can speak to their strategy, but my guess is that the WTBTS believes that a convincing witness will somehow persuade the judge and overcome the lack of legal authority upon which the relief requested by the WTBTS can be granted.
-
sir82
a convincing witness will somehow persuade the judge and overcome the lack of legal authority upon which the relief requested by the WTBTS can be granted.
Sounds pretty weak to me.
Unless of course they can get that flame-over-the-head thing going.
-
wha happened?
I hear u Mr 144.001k. Not a matter of concern, but interesting.
-
Band on the Run
I don't have time to even skim the precedent. Did the WTBTS stretch precedent beyond all sense? Certainly, they did not demand relief from the statutory requirements and not cite any controlling statutory or case law? Are they abusing the court? When does puffery about precedent become unethical and worthy of discipline? Don't WT lawyers have duties as officers of the court besides being Witnesses?
Chutzpah.
-
144001
Band,
They cited no precedent, only the code section I quoted above. I do not see any ethical violations here because the language of the code supports their argument, even if it is a very weak argument.