LANDMARK DECISION - Vicki Boer vs Watchtower Society (page 13)

hawkaw

You are way too cool Vicki. You guys make me very proud.

Expat.

You stated:

In Mr. Marks' defence, while there should certainly have been more presentation of Watchtower materials, it has to be remembered that he is not an ex-JW, and presumably before this case had the same level of knowledge of the Watchtower as any average member of society i.e. JW's are those odd people who disturb you on Saturday morning and that's it.

Having knowledge of some of the things that happened in this case such as who actually prepared the questions for the witnesses and how certain witnesses were NOT prepped and how certain people gave the ENTIRE policy to counsel and knowing a lot of learned counsels, I must respectfully disagree with your comment. Hell, even Linda G. and Bob McKeown were smart enough to wave the little green book in front of the friggin camera. They sure as hell knew the policy and they know what Bill Bowen and others were saying.

You must also keep in mind that I have over 80 pages of case law from years gone by showing Mr. Marks representing Mr. Mott-Trill in numerous actions against the Watchtower and defending Frank against the Watchtower. Mr. Marks and Mr. Mott-Trill are the only lawyer in USA or Canadian history to have a disfellowshipping overtunred by the court because Frank Mott-Trill was not offered due process.

My point Expat - I have researched the man and his background does not support your theory.

Hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you sir and again thanks for the stunning cigs scandal. Watchtower owning sharing of Philip Morris. Way too funny.

hawk

expatbrit

Hello Hawk:

Welcome back to the real world....lol

Since your knowledge of what Mr Marks was given and told is much greater than mine, I'll defer to your research (so long as you stop calling me sir). I do think that some kind of intensive information package for lawyers/paralegals etc would be a good thing.

Something else that has just hit me between the eyes was this:

You must also keep in mind that I have over 80 pages of case law from years gone by showing Mr. Marks representing Mr. Mott-Trill in numerous actions against the Watchtower and defending Frank against the Watchtower. Mr. Marks and Mr. Mott-Trill are the only lawyer in USA or Canadian history to have a disfellowshipping overtunred by the court because Frank Mott-Trill was not offered due process.

Can you clarify that? Are you saying that the Watchtower was forced to overturn a disfellowshipping decision by a secular court?!?!?!?!

If so, I really would like to get a copy of what you have on it.

Expatbrit

hawkaw

Sorry about the sir big guy - its my normal way of talking.

In answer to your question - Oh Yeah!!!. It all has to do with "due process". They have to follow their rules that they lay out when they kick you out. If they then the courts can intervene in Canada. Glen How and the boys are very familiar with this.

I can send you a copy. This is not new news. Shadow man has talked about this for sometime. Last year I went to Queen's Law library and retrived the information very easily.

hawk

kgfreeperson

It almost sounds as if you think that Marks "threw" the case. Why on earth would he do that?

hawkaw

No he did not purposely throw the case. But there is another term I would use that I will NOT state on a public discussion board.

waiting

But there is another term I would use that I will NOT state on a public discussion board. - hawk

o yeah, sir. like we haven't heard any of those terms before here.

your fan,

waiting

Uzzah

Glen How is an excellent trial lawyer when discussing sweeping legal principles. But sucks when it comes to details.

Linda How (Glen's 2nd wife) rarely sets foot in a court room except as observer but is excellent at research and writing of briefs/legal opinion.

Sarah Mott-Trille Hamilton when she was at Bethel was a lousy trial lawyer but a very good writer (She and Carolyn Wah were primarily responsible for the legal oriented rewriting of the "School" brochure)

John Burns is excellent at examination skills and detailed testimony. He is very weak when discussing constitutional law. He is a far better Orator than author.

Daniel Pole is overall an excellent trial attorney.

David Gnam is the stereotypical sleazy lawyer who will do/say anything to win a case.

Their newest Shane Brady (the former Bethel waiter turned lawyer) is all ego and bluster with little substance. He is the trial lawyer of last resort for the Society.

I guess what I am saying is that some lawyers are excellent legal writers, others excellent counsellors and others trial lawyers. Not all lawyers were meant to set foot in the court room. Or if they once were, age and lack of recent practice can erode those former skills.

Hope that sheds a little more light for you kgfree. No-one feels Mr Marks "Threw" the case.

Uzzah

needs_lots

Hey U-

If you still have the copy of the decision, could you post it here. THanks. I don't know how to do it.

Have you heard any new gossip from the "other side". I have not heard from Mr.Mott-trille, I think he must be in hiding. Talk soon.

vic

hawkaw

I am scanning this today.

Then I am making a pdf file

Then I am sending it to Bill for all to see.

hawk

Uzzah

Vicki:

I faxed a copy of the decision to Bill on Monday and from Hawk's comments above he mentioned he has asked Bill to post it at Silent Lambs.org

If for some reason he is unable to do so, I will be happy to start scanning the pages for posting here. I just don't want to duplicate efforts unnecessarily. Let me know.

FYI - I have arranged for Barbara Anderson, Scully and Hawk to get clean paper copies of the decision. They should arrive today by mail for most of them. A couple of your support team of exjw's (i.e.: expatbrit) in Toronto will be getting copies on Friday. Local legal eagle Chris has already been faxed a copy for his review as well.

Feel free to call if there is anything more I can do.

Uzzah

LANDMARK DECISION - Vicki Boer vs Watchtower Society

Share this