by mind blown 85 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Sad thing is that they accepted a reduced amount, then the wtbs appeals anyway.
even when a good deed is done they slap ya in the face..
What would Jesus have done?
Probably turn the other cheek and apoligised to Candice.
It is easy to see who if from god and who is not in this matter.
Farkel:
I agree that it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would ever hear this appeal. First, the California Supreme Court would have to agree to hear it, which is a discretionary appeal. Even if that happened, only about 1% of cases appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court are actually heard by that court. But the test for whether it can hear an appeal from a state supreme court doesn't have anything to do with the 10th Amendment. The test is whether the case meets the requirements of a federal statute, 28 USC 1257. The case must also meet the requirements of Article III of the US Constitution.
Since punitive damages are involved in this case, it is possible that these would be grounds for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have heard state-law cases involving punitive damages in the recent past, such as State Farm v. Campbell. The theory is that the improper award of punitives or excessive award of punitives can be a violation of due process, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Watchtower could argue that awarding punitive damages for the purposes of forcing a change in policy is a due process violation, and that would be grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
So, that's my amateur roadmap to how the U.S. Supreme Court could hear the case. I think it's extraordinarily unlikely, but not impossible.
If the WT fights on that basis they may well shoot themselves in the foot, as it may well be shown, or may well already have been, that they were not simply negligent, but that the lack of a change in policy resulted in harm to others, not just to Candace. In which case punitive damages are justified.
(At least here in the U.K it would probably be viewed that way).
A real exposure in Court of their lamentable attitude to the victims of abuse will ensue.
It is only going to be emotionally draining for the WTS because ALL they care about...is the money. Farkel | |
| Right, and their corporate image or brand. |
Any guesses on how long before the substance of WT's brief will become public knowledge?
(I don't see going to the court and paying for a copy in my near future.)
om
Does anyone remember the Sik Screams interview with Simons? Didn't he mention he was ready for the WTs to appeal, and on what grounds (unless WTS has changed it since). I wish I could remember exactly what was said....
Someone above asked the question, "what does the WTS have to lose on appeal?"
The answer is: quite a lot. They don't have the guns to fight this by themselves, so they have to outsource the legal work and pay big bucks to do it.
The only way they will NOT lose is to win on appeal, but even then they lose the big bucks they have forked out and the damaging publicity will last forever, anyway.
Someone else argued that whether the Supreme Court hears the case or not is NOT subject to the 10th amendment, but rather Article III of the Constitution (the powers given by the people to the Supreme Court). I would like to point out that both the 10th amendment and article III limit the powers granted to the Supreme Court and those powers do not trump the rights of the States OR the Constitution other than in cases where the Federal Government has 18 specific and limited powers. All other powers are given to the States and people respectively. The notion of the WTS being deprived of due process is ridiculous since the Courts ARE due process and punitive damaged are, well, punitive.
If any of you have actually seen WTS lawyers defending a case in court, you would laugh so hard you would start hurling. They make the Keystone Cops look like Sherlock Holmes.
Farkel
The notion of the WTS being deprived of due process is ridiculous since the Courts ARE due process and punitive damaged are, well, punitive.
Well, having your case heard before a court does not by itself satisfy due process. There have been thousands of appeals in the history of the United States on due process grounds where the parties had their case heard by a lower court. And if you follow the link to the State Farm case in the prior post, you will see that not all punitive damage awards are constitutional.
As to the 10th Amendment limiting federal judicial powers, that certainly is not a theory that has ever been endorsed by the Supreme Court. It may be a minority academic view that some agree with, but I don't think you would get very far with that argument in the federal courts.
"Many appeals are based on the argument that the case or a party should have been dismissed before there was even a trial."
If that was to happen the WTS will have to have a strong case, because a pure question of law or new issue will have to be presented by undisputed facts. Also, Court of Appeal will not generally consider issues that were not initially raised in the trial court. If a trial lawyer did not object to a particular ruling or piece of evidence, that issue most likely cannot be raised on appeal.
Keep in mind that if you appeal, the other side might “cross-appeal” — in other words, your opponent may try to reverse aspects of the trial court proceeding that were favorable to you. Therefore, even if you succeed in reversing one aspect of the trial court proceeding, the benefit could be offset by a less welcome reversal of another.
And if the WTS does lose, they may also create a binding precedent in the disputed area of the law. Trial court decisions are not binding on other courts. (which Candace is aiming for)
Even if you can point to legal error by the trial court, that does not of itself mean that you will succeed on appeal. The error must be “prejudicial.” The meaning of that term is itself a subject for argument, but one interpretation is that an error is prejudicial if there is a “real chance” that it made a difference to the outcome.
Winning on appeal is not easy. R oughly one in five results in a complete reversal — and that doesn’t include appeals that result in some modification short of a reversal.
On a side note, the jury award Conti a much higher amount of damages. In turn the t he judge (with agreement from Candace) has already reduced the punitive damages in response to the WTS's complaint.
info:
I forgot to add: since the WTS complained about the award (got it reduced), and changing of WTS policy was also brought up in trial, I believe these issues will not be raised.
