As with everything Rick Simons has written in this case, the Respondent's Brief is clear, straightforward and well-reasoned. I love how he thwarts the WTS attempt to bring in constitutional issues so as to open the door to future appeal to CA and/or US Supreme Court.
Data-Dog and Simon: You both comment on the disparity between the WTS legal arguments and their own teachings. I couldn't help but think that you have three departments: (1) writing; (2) service; and (3) legal, each with its own purpose and reason for existing. It is fundamental that, at times, there will be conflicts in the aims of these departments. Who has the responsibility to resolve these conflicts so as to avoid the kind of disparity we see here. On paper, it's the Governing Body. Do its members have have the education, the insight, the foresight and the wisdom to avoid what we now see playing out in the California courts? It's a self-answering question.
Gayle: The WTS Reply Brief is due next month. After that the Court will set a date for oral argument. Given what's at stake, I can't imagine either party waiving oral argument.
Once again, great brief Mr. Simons!
