by Teary Oberon 8 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=A136641
If you notice, there is now a new entry under the Docket tab:
"filed additional cites for oral arguments - Richard Simons"
Anybody know what this entry means? Does it mean that the oral arguments have already happened and he is sending the judge his cited references, or is it just preparation for arguments?
I would like to understand what happening
I don't know CA law. My guess is that he wants to use cases that he did not file with the brief. The defendants must have notice so that they are prepared.
Most likely he's simply filing more citations to other documents for previous oral arguments. It would be weird to publish what your oral argument will be about before since that would give the opposition time to prepare opposition to it. Either way, this case is going to go on for quite a bit of time before final judgment and then it will be appealed to the SCOTUS which (since they're currently all relgious nutjobs) the JW's will appeal to their theocratic authority.
Citations? Sources? You have to give the other party notice. Law started with surprise in the courtroom. Perry Mason? Now both sides know the areas raised and the precedent that will be used.
"Either way, this case is going to go on for quite a bit of time before final judgment and then it will be appealed to the SCOTUS which (since they're currently all relgious nutjobs) the JW's will appeal to their theocratic authority."
It might be appealed to the California Supreme Court, but not likely to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The other two cases we've had that were very similar to this one were Berry v. Watchtower which made it to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and Bryan R. v. Watchtower which made it to the Maine Supreme Court. Watchtower won in both instances if I remember correctly.
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2005/berry081.htm
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/99me144r.htm
I don't know whether the Maine/Hampshire State Law has provisions like California's though. It seems that in Berry, the parent didn't report and the court found that they should've reported before the elders (basically the victims' parents protected the congregation). In Bryan, there again, a parent didn't report and they found that there is not much precedence in common law not reporting a crime did not mean one should be liable for it's results.
It sounds as though legislative intent will be important. I don't know how CA tracks legislative action.
"I don't know whether the Maine/Hampshire State Law has provisions like California's though. It seems that in Berry, the parent didn't report and the court found that they should've reported before the elders (basically the victims' parents protected the congregation). In Bryan, there again, a parent didn't report and they found that there is not much precedence in common law not reporting a crime did not mean one should be liable for it's results."
I think, more important in both cases was the fact that neither Supreme Court found a special or fiduciary duty existing between Plaintiff and the congregations. Quoting Berry which itself quotes Bryan:
There are no factors present that establish any special relationship between the plaintiffs and Watchtower or Wilton Congregation. See Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Ct. , 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399, 406 (Ct. App. 1996) (no special relationship exists between a church and its parishioners). "The creation of an amorphous common law duty on the part of a church or other voluntary organization requiring it to protect its members from each other would give rise to both unlimited liability and liability out of all proportion to culpability." Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. , 738 A.2d 839, 847 (Me. 1999) (quotation omitted), cert . denied , 528 U.S. 1189 (2000) (parishioner’s allegation that he was sexually assaulted by an adult church member when he was a child did not establish special relationship with church despite fact that elders knew of the abuse). We decline to hold that the fact of church membership or adherence to church doctrine by the plaintiffs’ parents creates a special relationship between the plaintiffs and Watchtower or Wilton Congregation.
The trial court Judge in Conti did declare a special relationship to exist, and that formed the basis of further action. To my knowledge, this is solely the decision of the Judge, not the jury. Therefore, if the Appellate Court in Conti dissagrees with the trial Judge and finds that no special relationship existed (following in the footsteps of the New Hampshire and Maine Supreme Courts), then it seems to me that the whole case would fall apart.
