I received another email from the Court:
Attorney Richard Simons (for Candace Conti) has submitted a request for oral argument
ginger
Candace Conti case updated
by gingerbread 29 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Vidiot
Um...
...is he asking to make an oral argument himself, or is he asking for the WT lawyers to make an oral argument?
BTW, isn't his name Richard Simons?
I think Richard Simmons is that "sweatin' to the oldies" guy.
-
Narcissistic Supply
>> I doubt the Supreme Court will hear it based on the RCCs appeals:
<<<
I thought WT claims they are NOT clergy and this is how they avoid having to report this kind of stuff, and have no fiduciary responsibility to report anything because they are not some kind of licensed counselor, clergy, or regulated by any professional board (of any kind)....... and THEREFORE not obligated to report anything. It's all rhetorical nuances to avoid culpability.
i'm not an attorney....
-
gingerbread
Vidiot - I don't know enough about the California appeals process and oral argument - so hopefully Chaserious or DNCall will respond to your question.
ginger
-
Vidiot
Narcissistic Supply - "It's all rhetorical nuances to avoid culpability."
Oh yeah; you'd have to be a moron not to realize that.
-
Narcissistic Supply
Vidiot, WT would be remiss to appeal to supreme court as they will lose harshly in the court of public opinion. If the WT arguments can be succinctly shown to be dangerous, aiding and abetting child endangerment. There may be unexpected consequences.
It's like having the tylenol scare and refusing to respond to the threat. Very bad publicicty. It's like forever being associated with endangering children. This is a real risk.
-
Gopher
The WT Society is quite proud of its record at the US Supreme Court in the mid-twentieth century. While some of their cases they took up were for a self-serving interest, it was good to see the Court rule several times in favor of free speech and freedom of worship -- especially noteworthy was the West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette which established that saluting the flag cannot be compulsory in America's public schools.
That having been said, I wonder if they'd throw the dice and gamble on gaining a big black mark in the public's view by taking a "freedom to hide child abuse" case all the way to the Supreme Court. Personally I hope they do it - it would make clear the kind of power-hungry sons-of-bitches they really are.
-
Vidiot
Narcissistic Supply - "WT would be remiss to appeal to supreme court as they will lose harshly in the court of public opinion. If the WT arguments can be succinctly shown to be dangerous, aiding and abetting child endangerment. There may be unexpected consequences."
As to your first point; you're absolutely right...
...however...
...the WTS hasn't given a shit about the court of public opinion in a long, long time; if "Satan's World" has an abysmally low view of them, it just reinforces the idea that they have "The Truth" (both to HQ and the R&F).
As to your second point (and related to the first), you're absolutely right about unexpected consequences, too...
...however...
...everything we know about the GB indicates that they fully believe what they say and that God's totally got their back. That combination is an almost perfect recipe for a complete inability to consider that they could ever lose.
And when a groupthink-oriented bunch can't conceive losing (or has nothing left to lose), they tend to make seriously crazy-ass (and stoopid-ass) decisions.
-
Vidiot
Gopher - "Personally I hope they do it - it would make clear the kind of power-hungry sons-of-bitches they really are."
I'd be very surprised if you didn't get your wish.
Considering the new lawsuits that are coming out on an (almost) weekly basis, I think it's gonna get pretty fugly.
-
Tylinbrando
Simons filed to make oral argument.