If these guys (the WTS) really believe they the dreck they publish, perhpas they are hoping that Armageddon will come "soon" to rescue them from having to pay this. Hence the appeals to drag it out as long as possible.
Conti v Watchtower - Court Denies Watchtower Motion re: Substituting Bond - November 16 court documents in pdf
by jwleaks 102 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
ziddina
Bump.
-
Band on the Run
Cash in hand is nicer than cash in the bush. Theoretically, the decision is Candace's but I wonder if she has much experience managing lawyers. Both she and Simons could end up with $0. She has to be commended for not settling already.
If she loses, it could set precedent against other victims. I admire her b/c I think I would just fold. They already tried to shame her with behavior that was consistent with being abused. Their attempts to smear her may have further convinced the jury that abuse occurred. I notice that the people I admire stood up despite embarassment and put the blame where it belonged.
We only know a small fraction of what is happening.
Has anyone checked the legislative history behind the CA mandatory reporting act? I wonder whether there are any findings to what the CA law was before its enactment. I suppose if such language existed one way or the other, we would have heard about it.
-
Doubting Bro
But if the WTS settles and drops their appeal, wouldn't this be bad case law for them? If they are sucessful on appeal, wouldn't that help them defend future suits with similar circumstances?
The few million they're going to save if they drop their appeal and settle would need to be weighed against the additional millions new suits could cost them wouldn't they?
That's why I think the WTS has no choice but to push forward with the appeals process.
-
mind blown
"it is quite common for the losing party at trial to offer not to appeal if the winner accepts reduced damages."
Are you positive the WTS is appealing the entire case, maybe only appealing with Motion to Substitute or Reduce Bond buying time to gather money?
I would think the judge/court would be pretty pissed after Conti accepted reduced damages only to turn around and appeal. Does that make sense?
-
frankiespeakin
How many more appeals can the WT make before they are forced to pay up? Is there some type of limit?
-
wha happened?
lets not make a decision for her. There's still alot of water that needs to go underneath the bridge. The opportunities will present themselves soon enough
-
cedars
I would humbly suggest those saying Candace should settle are wide of the mark. There's a lot going on that we don't know about. I've been told things that I'm not allowed to divulge, and there are other things going on that have not been shared with me. Obviously the Conti team are in a much stronger position to fight this lawsuit if they keep their cards close to their chest and don't provide a running commentary on their plans for the case, so there's much we simply don't know - which is how it should be.
What little I have been told convinces me that Candace and her lawyers are taking this extremely seriously and are very confident of withstanding this appeal. I would imagine they've drawn even more confidence from the Patterson debacle.
That's my two cents.
Cedars
-
DavePerez
Doubting bro asked-
But if the WTS settles and drops their appeal, wouldn't this be bad case law for them?
No, as jury trial verdicts don't set legal precedents; subsequent jury cases are heard on their own individual merits, and are weighed (or SHOULD be weighed) by comparing the presented evidence with relevant existing laws/statutes.
Of course, jury trials don't always properly interpret the law, and the possibility for appeal exists to avoid a miscarriage of justice. It's only when you get to the level of an appellate court that new precedent is set (and not always, as the ruling must be 'published' and citeable to set precedent).
(PS someone mentioned class-action lawsuits above, but I'm not sure why: it's of no relevance to this matter.)
If they are sucessful on appeal, wouldn't that help them defend future suits with similar circumstances?
It's not likely this case would result in a new precedent if they win on appeal, so I doubt it. Not all appeal decisions result in new precedents, anyway.
Mindblown asked-
Are you positive the WTS is appealing the entire case, maybe only appealing with Motion to Substitute or Reduce Bond buying time to gather money?
I would think the judge/court would be pretty pissed after Conti accepted reduced damages only to turn around and appeal. Does that make sense?
No, it doesn't make sense. That's exactly how the legal process works, as allowable by law.
WTBTS is appealing: the securitization of the judgment is required in order to start the appeal. You're confusing a procedural matter (bond substitution, a a financial matter) that has NOTHING to do with the facts of the Conti case which will be under review. The three judges haven't started evaluating the merits of the case itself, which likely will take a few years.
Unlike a jury trial, appeals are largely carried out on paper, with judges comparing evidence presented at trial and procedures used by judge, making sure it complies with existing law. Jury trials are like theatre, where juries are often swayed by emotions, etc, and justice doesn't always prevail (it's a well-known fact that juries often award victims with whom they sympathize). Hence why appellate processes exist: experienced judges are not swayed by emotions.
Before jury trial, I SUSPECT that WTBTS lawyers felt the case was weak, a slam-dunk to win (for a number of valid legal reasons, eg lack of CA mandatory reporting laws at the time, etc), and hence didn't feel strongly motivated to settle out before trial. If the case was stronger, it's likely you and I wouldn't have heard of it, as there's reportedly been many cases that have settled out, with both parties signing non-disclosure agreements.
Now that WTBTS has lost the first round, that doesn't change the same reasons WTBTS lawyers felt the case would eventually prevail, and hence why they are now likely less-motivated to settle out. As far as the "damaging PR" angle, that wad has already been shot: the damage has been done, and it is what it is. So there goes that motivation to settle, at this point. If anything, a victory on appeal is only more desirable to WTBTS, to mitigate the damage.
In his response, Simons said:
Although the concern of the Church Defendants for Ms. Conti is heartwarming, if somewhat belated, their request is specifically prohibited by statute.
Well technically, it's not that the property substitution REQUEST is forbidden by statute, since CA law says that the plaintiff CAN voluntarily waive their right to securitization, for whatever reason(s) they determine to be in their best interests (and certainly, most people would find it in their best interests to NOT have to cough up an extra $200k, in the event they end up losing the appeal!). If not voluntarily waived by the plaintiff, some CA appeals have been secured with letters/lines of credit, even though it's not listed in the relevant statute. So there's a measure of flexibility allowed, and judges are willing to rubber-stamp whatever securitization agreements are made between the parties.
However, in the response to the motion, Simons made it clear they weren't willing to accept the property substitution, and hence the court was reluctant to order it against their will. So even though the odds were very low that the WT would prevail on the substitution motion without the plaintiff's cooperation, there's no harm in asking: 'rare' does not mean 'NEVER'.And note that Simons effort to block WTBTS oral presentation to the court failed, as the court said there was good cause to grant WT's request to allow them to present their oral argument. So the request, even without their cooperation wasn't completely devoid of legal merit, or the court wouldn't have allowed the hearing on the matter. But it didn't cost WTBTS anything to ask, and as stated above, it's a cost that Conti could've avoided if WT prevails on appeal, and no one can say afterwards that at the WTBTS at least didn't try to prevent the eventuality.
BTW, that $86k anual bond premium is only about 7% of the amount of interest that WTBTS will to pay if they lose (10% interest rate means $1 mil/year they'd owe Conti, in addition to the $12mil principal), so the bond premium is a small amount compared to the interest.
-
mind blown
DP Thanx for clearing that up........