WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013 (page 3)

Chaserious

I'm sure the Contis didn't think the case was over. I'm surprised that anyone thought they were going to file an appeal and hire a new appeals lawyer and then just forget about filing the appeal. But yes, the appeal is not a rehearing. It's an allegation of legal errors. There will be no testimony and the parties don't have to attend.

Gayle

what does this mean?

Something is due; see note.

04/02/2013

check on order to file AOB.
check on order for pro hac

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/scheduledActions.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=A136641

(so the 'legalese hat dance' continues)

so do I understand, that the 'brief' was not so brief but 'volumes' were sent by the WTS? Now the judge or a group of judges have to read all this and they have to decide 'if' in fact some court error happened in the hearing? Then, what options could the appellate judge group order?

TheOldHippie

Could someone very shortly tell me poor non-US person the time-line or the actions, the "what is happening and what will happen next" of this case? Not what the case is about, but the way and manners the US system works or deals with a case like this. So that I can get an understanding of how the US system functions, as it is different from ours.

DNCall

Gayle,

The volumes consist of documents from the trial that support the brief. Those are usually submitted, if not always submitted. The brief itself contained more words than allowed by the court rules, hence being designated "oversized." The scheduled actions for April 2 are reminders to follow up on whatever the court ordered the WTS regarding their oversized brief and to follow up on the pro hac vice request to allow representation by one of the WTS' New York lawyers.

DNCall

TOH: Candace now has 30 days to file her respondent's brief. Then WTS has 20 days to file its reply to Candace's response. Both of those deadlines can be extended if both sides agree to the extensions. Once the briefing is complete, the court will set a date for oral argument. The court then deliberates and renders its judgment some weeks, at times months, later. Either party can petition the California Supreme Court to review the appeallate court's decision if they so desire.

Hillary

So I am correct that the next step up the ladder for another appeal is the California Supreme Court and then the next step up after that is U.S. Supreme Court, and then that's it? Only 2 more appeals courts after this one?

Splash

So this time next year we might be nearing a final verdict!

Splash

DNCall

That's about right Hillary. Whereas the CA Supreme Court would likely review the case, it's less likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would review this particular case. This is because it may not find a constitutional issue within the case. This is a much different kind of case than those involving constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of religion that were at issue in the WTS cases back in the 30s and 40s.

mind blown

DNcall, Thank you for making that clearer. I was trying search and figure out what's going on re: pro hac vice and oversized brief. You made it much easier.

I "think" the pro vac vice is for an out of State (as you already mentioned) New York lawyer.

Is it that the attys haven't filed a brief before in appellate court, or they're buying time? Isn't there protocol they are to follow by the letter (size of brief, wording, etc) ? I find it odd, unless as jgnat mentioned, the WTS Corp is being taken to the cleaners by their atty's....???

DNCall

MB: The WTS hired a firm that specializes in appellate work, so this isn't their first rodeo. I am surprised that they exceeded the allowable word count. I wouldn't conclude that they are taking advantage billing-wise. Appeals are expensive because they involve a lot of research, paperwork and expertise. Oftentimes deadlines are continued simply due to the attorney's case load.

WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013

Share this