The Governing Body's Reply to Hines' Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss appears to address the various elements in the Opposition including case law cited by Hines. It's now up to the judge to determine which party will prevail. The judge has up to 60 days to make such determination but it has been stipulated that the return date for the parties to return to court is tomorrow, April 13th. The Court may continue (delay) this date. I'm not sure what form this hearing will take, whether oral argument will be allowed or not, whether the judge will have made a decision, etc. If the motion to dismiss is granted, the GB wins, pending any further action by Hines. If the motion is denied, in whole or in part, the case can proceed. This is a broad picture. The actual outcome remains to be seen.
DNCall
JoinedPosts by DNCall
-
1
Governing Body's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss in Hines v. Watchtower
by DNCall inthe governing body's reply to hines' opposition to their motion to dismiss appears to address the various elements in the opposition including case law cited by hines.
it's now up to the judge to determine which party will prevail.
the judge has up to 60 days to make such determination but it has been stipulated that the return date for the parties to return to court is tomorrow, april 13th.
-
-
-
6
Hines v. Watchtower, et al, Plaintiff's Opposition to GB's Motion to Dismiss
by DNCall inlast friday, plaintiff hines' opposition to the above motion was filed.
it appears to me that the zalkin firm eviscerates the gb's motion.
in plaintiff's memorandum of law, it is clearly presented that the elements of hines' complaint are of the type protected by ny law against motions to dismiss.
-
-
DNCall
The GB's reply deadline to Hine's Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss has been delayed, as has the hearing date from 3/30 to the middle of April. This extension of time was stipulated to by the parties.
-
6
Hines v. Watchtower, et al, Plaintiff's Opposition to GB's Motion to Dismiss
by DNCall inlast friday, plaintiff hines' opposition to the above motion was filed.
it appears to me that the zalkin firm eviscerates the gb's motion.
in plaintiff's memorandum of law, it is clearly presented that the elements of hines' complaint are of the type protected by ny law against motions to dismiss.
-
-
DNCall
Last Friday, Plaintiff Hines' Opposition to the above motion was filed. It appears to me that the Zalkin firm eviscerates the GB's motion. In Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, it is clearly presented that the elements of Hines' complaint are of the type protected by NY law against motions to dismiss. The opposition also comprehensively refutes the Governing Body's contention that it is immune to being sued as put forth in their motion. You can read the opposition and supporting documents HERE.
-
1
Watchtower New York Answers Complaint in Hines v. Watchtower
by DNCall inthe link to the court's docket in this matter is found here.
it is a pretty standard answer to complaint, containing denials, some admissions and affirmative defenses.
now we know that watchtower ny has been served and is participating in this case..
-
-
-
5
Hines v, Watchtower
by DNCall inattorneys for the governing body have responded to the complaint in the above matter by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint.
the underlying argument its that the governing body is not a legal entity and thus cannot sue or be sued.. the zalkin firm will file an opposition to the motion and perhaps and amended complaint.. what remains a curiosity is why watchtower new york has apparently not been served.. you can read the motion here..
-
-
DNCall
Index No. 520772/2021
-
5
Hines v, Watchtower
by DNCall inattorneys for the governing body have responded to the complaint in the above matter by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint.
the underlying argument its that the governing body is not a legal entity and thus cannot sue or be sued.. the zalkin firm will file an opposition to the motion and perhaps and amended complaint.. what remains a curiosity is why watchtower new york has apparently not been served.. you can read the motion here..
-
-
DNCall
Attorneys for the Governing Body have responded to the complaint in the above matter by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint. The underlying argument its that the Governing Body is not a legal entity and thus cannot sue or be sued.
The Zalkin firm will file an opposition to the motion and perhaps and amended complaint.
What remains a curiosity is why Watchtower New York has apparently not been served.
You can read the motion here.
-
17
The Governing Body KNEW CSA was happening at Bethel
by Newly Enlightened inhttps://youtu.be/btryr_z7elg.
-
-
DNCall
Corney: That could well be, but WT has a history of late responses (e.g., Conti). If they haven’t been served yet, it’s interesting that the GB has been served while, in all this time, WT hasn’t. Is it possible that the GB accepted stipulated service under the condition that plaintiff agrees to dismiss WT? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
-
17
The Governing Body KNEW CSA was happening at Bethel
by Newly Enlightened inhttps://youtu.be/btryr_z7elg.
-
-
DNCall
nowwhat: You pose some really valid questions. Likely, an amended complaint or complaints will be filed by Hines. Questions like yours help Hines to refine her amended complaint. Zalkin has had a lot of experience with these types of matters and I would think it unlikely that he would file a frivolous complaint. What is irresponsible though is for the OP to treat the allegations in the complaint as established fact before the GB responds, before any amended complaint(s), before discovery and before pre-trial motions. We may never know the facts of this case should a confidential settlement be reached. What I find interesting is that defendant Watchtower of New York, as far as the court docket shows, has not filed any responsive papers. They are way past the statutory deadline to do so and have not attempted to request an extension in which to respond.
-
5
Hines v. Watchtower
by DNCall inthe governing body's response to the above complaint has been extended by stipulation until february 11, 2022. it had been due today.
this should be an important case as it alleges csa at bethel with governing body members' knowing about it.
you can follow it here..
-
-
-
65
New Article - Birthdays, Why the Watchtower stance is wrong
by jwfacts ini have a new article at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/birthdays.php outlining why the watchtower stance against birthdays is wrong.
there have been a number of threads on jwn discussing this, and the article collates and summarises the points raised in these threads.
please feel free to point out any errors in grammar or logic.
-
-
DNCall
“Lee:” when you claim to be the One True Religion you must be able to point to beliefs and practices that are unique to your religion, that set it apart. These have been described as identifying marks of the true religion. It is branding, no more, no less. Those affected adversely by this branding be damned as far as the organization cares.