SCHNACK ATTACK!!!!!!
WTS action on Conti's case 3/27/2013
by mind blown 85 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
gingerbread
Thanks for the link DNCall .
As we've read in recent BOE letters/directives regarding charges of sexual abuse, the WT corp is primarily interested in the ramifications of the potential financial loss, divisions in a congregation and negative public perception because of lawsuits. They want to keep any damage to a minimum. And, they are not concerned with any form of victim support or therapy.
The WT Society does NOT want to drop this - and they've hired some big guns for the appeal.
-
mind blown
Rick Simons has a HUGE network of various kinds of atty's accoss the nation, who also specialize is Clergy sex abuse cases. It's not wishful thinking, but fact. He was also rated number one as a california lawyer. Plus, I sure he wants to get paid.....
For many, as already mentioned, it is the trial or Smack Down of the Century
-
gingerbread
If I understand the appeals process, the appeal is not for a retrial but to argue through the "brief" that a legal error has been made. The Court of Appeal (a panel of judges...I think) can determine if an error occurred. They make this judgement after careful review of both the appellant's and appellee's briefs. The judge(s) have the option of setting up a time for oral arguments as well.
At this point it's a situation of who presents the best argument - was there a legal error(s) during the civil trial that led to the judgement against the WT Society. Or, should the lower court's judgement stand.
Am I correct? And is this the process in California?
-
-
Chaserious
At this point it's a situation of who presents the best argument - was there a legal error(s) during the civil trial that led to the judgement against the WT Society. Or, should the lower court's judgement stand.
Am I correct? And is this the process in California?
What you said seems about right. It's a panel of three judges, where two out of three wins. I believe California is a state that guarantees the right to oral argument (unless waived by the parties), although in some states the judges have to grant it.
It's not just the possibility of a legal error during the trial, in the strict sense of the term, that can be appealed. Many appeals are based on the argument that the case or a party should have been dismissed before there was even a trial. I am sure one of the WT's arguments will be that they should have been let out of the case by the trial judge before there ever was a jury trial.
-
david_10
You know what I think? I think this is going to be a long drawn out process with the WTBS using every legal ploy and loophole known to man. I said in another thread that the Society has something up their sleeve, and, believe me, they do. It's going to be emotionally draining, to say the least, for Candace and her family. Already, everyone's on edge and nerves are raw and it's going to get worse.
The pressure will be on Candace to settle.
I think she should. She won the case................she humiliated the Watchtower and has drawn attention to the plight of abuse victims everywhere. Candace has done all this, and, if she settles now, she now could pay off her counsel, wind up being a multi-millionaire, and get on with her life. Otherwise, from here on out, it's anybody's guess as to what's going to happen.
Candace, if you're reading this, take the money and run.
David -
Farkel
DNcall,
You wrote:
: 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.
Yes. In case some people don't know or forgot, the U.S. Supreme Court only deals with cases within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government's powers allowed by the US Constitution. Any and all other cases are reserved to be appealed only to the highest Courts of each State.
It's clearly stated in the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights. I doubt Candace's case would ever be able to reach the Federal level and if someone thinks it might, I would love to see evidence of the power of the Federal Government to intervene in a State's sovereignty in this matter.
David_10:
: I said in another thread that the Society has something up their sleeve, and, believe me, they do. It's going to be emotionally draining, to say the least, for Candace and her family. Already, everyone's on edge and nerves are raw and it's going to get worse.
Doubtful. It is nearly impossible that Candace will ever have to testify again. Her only stress will be in the waiting for this to be resolved. She already made it clear she doesn't care much about the money. She has already won because she has dragged the WTS into the sewer where they swim anyway.
It is only going to be emotionally draining for the WTS because ALL they care about...is the money.
Farkel
-
wha happened?
Yep and sometimes greed causes you to lose money. I've seen people lock horns in court spending tens of thousand to preserve thousands.
-
david_10
Doubtful. It is nearly impossible that Candace will ever have to testify again. Her only stress will be in the waiting for this to be resolved. She already made it clear she doesn't care much about the money. She has already won because she has dragged the WTS into the sewer where they swim anyway.
It is only going to be emotionally draining for the WTS because ALL they care about...is the money.
Farkel
Howdy Farkel. You might be right. What I'm going on is the statement that was made earlier in this thread: "Kathleen is very emotional about the case. who can blame her" I have no doubt that this is true. I'm sure this applies to Candace, too. I can only imagine...............if it was me, I'd be a nervous wreck right about now.
It seems to me that the Watchtower can drag this out and play with the legal system because they have absolutely nothing to lose. Since they've already lost, they can only improve their position. Candace, on the other hand, has everything to lose. Nobody knows how appellate courts are going to rule, but they've been known to make some pretty controversial decisions. Here in Texas, the Courts of Appeals, more often than not, leave everybody scratching their head and wondering what they could possibly be thinking. So, I wouldn't say that "It is nearly impossible that Candace will ever have to testify again. " Nobody knows that. The appellate court could throw out the verdict and order a new trial--------in effect, start the whole thing over. That probably won't happen, but you never know.
So, after thinking this over and considering all the possibilities and variables involved, I think I'd settle and get this over with and get on with my life. But that's just me. Candace will follow her own conscience, and I'll certainly respect whatever she decides to do.
David