by gingerbread 29 Replies latest jw friends
I just received an email notification from the California Appellate Court hearing the WT appeal of the Conti case:
The case has been fully briefed.
The case is on the conference list.
The oral argument waiver notice has been sent.
I'm not well versed in the process or these terms. Can anyone help clarify??
ginger
marked
Fully briefed means that all of the written arguments that are allowed have now been submitted by both sides. It's a total of three briefs - the defendants filed an opening brief, Conti's lawyers filed an answer brief, and then the defendants filed a reply brief. Oral argument waiver just means the parties can voluntarily forego in-person argument before the appeals panel. It's not uncommon for parties in some cases to let the judges decide "on the papers" and have the court make a decision without oral argument, so the court tries to get parties to waive to lighten their argument calendar. The parties probably won't waive in this case.
Thanks, we are all waiting for this case to be settled.
Godspeed to Candace and her attorney.
I just hope this case backfires on the WTB&TS and that Candace Conti wins the case.
The WTB&TS have in the past been in similar situations where they have settled out of court and put a gag order on the recipients of their payouts.
Candace Conti refused to settle out of court and not be subjected to a gag order .
The WTB&TS have seen fit to drag this court proceedings on in the hope of wearing Candace Conti down and settling out of court on their terms.
Bravo and Kudos to Candace Conti in her resolve to get justice for crimes against her by a failure of duty of care by a religous organization.
smiddy
" Bravo and Kudos to Candace Conti in her resolve to get justice for crimes against her by a failure of duty of care by a religous organization."
I second that Smiddy, also, that admirable young lady Candace, is motivated primarily by a desire to see that the maximum is done to prevent more cases of abuse in the future. She has shown that it is not about the damages, or even simply what is her due, justice for her, no, her motives and aims are higher than that.
Abuse is always a risk, but the WT's intransigent attitude that they will do nothing of worth to protect the vulnerable remains to this day, 6th September 2013.
Little ones and vulnerable ones are being raped and abused right now in the JW religion, as I write, and it need not be so.
Maybe when it starts costing them Millions of donated $$$ the R&F will demand that something be done.
The GB's determination to keep the WT/JW world a Paedophiles Paradise as long as possible seems extremely suspiscious, in every other field they protect their $$$, here they are protecting Paedophiles only.
smiddy - "The WTB&TS have seen fit to drag this court proceedings on in the hope of wearing Candace Conti down and settling out of court on their terms."
I think there's more to it than that.
Don't be surprised if they keep appealing this all the way up to the Supreme Court. A SCOTUS win for the WTS will set a precedent that could theoretically immunize them against any further abuse-related litigation.
That'd be well worth the risk to them.
Vid,
I doubt the Supreme Court will hear it based on the RCCs appeals:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/catholic-church-abuse-claims-compensation
I dunno...
...I suspect that, comparitively, the WTS is feeling the pinch a bit more (plateauing membership and revenue flow, low retention, etc., which all impact the bottom line), and is thusly feeling far more threatened than the Catholic heirarchy.
I would argue that the WTS would therefore be far hungrier for a SCOTUS victory than the RCC (which has way more assets and staying power, and can far more easily weather whatever storm comes its way).
That might be enough motivation (or, dare I say, desperation) to stay the course.
