Is anyone really supposed to take a series of videos at face value with the word "Testmoney" in the title, and featuring a guy in sunglasses and a pimp hat? I read the previous comments and watched videos 8-10. Clearly the biggest problem the elders had was that they did not have a real lawyer, and possibly relied on this guy for advice. The clerks forged the judge's signature on a ruling? Do you have any idea how severe the consequences are for doing something like this, and how seriously any judge would take this kind of thing? If you get on the WTS shit-list you are going to get trumped-up speeding and parking tickets? WTS has the Canadian Border Patrol in their pocket? Running people off the road to intimidate them like Ralph Macchio in Karate Kid? This is a joke. Why haven't they launched rocket propelled grenades at Candace Conti's lawyer's office?
I am extremely doubtful that this man has experience even as a paralegal, or is in any way qualified to provide legal assistance of any sort. Cobb was not prepared in the least to respond to hearsay objections or get documents admitted. He thought he could question the WTS attorney after he was cross-examined. I have coached high school kids in mock trial who could have done a far better job with evidentiary issues. The Supreme Court case that Cobb cited in his closing argument on the Corporations Code issue is entirely irrelevant to this case. Not to take anything away from Cobb and the other plaintiffs; they just obviously had no one knowledgeable helping.
Juan, have you been able to confirm that the person appearing in this video was actually the same person giving legal advice to the Menlo Park elders?
I think that what the WT did was underhanded, but in California as long as a religion is hierarchical it will prove very difficult to take property away from the parent organization. In other states the result could be differnt, but it seems like it would have been difficult to get around the California Supreme Court rule from In re Episcipal Church Cases in 2009. In my mind there is no question the WTS is hierarchical. I certainly haven't followed this case as carefully as you, Juan. Do you know of a legal argument that has been advanced as to why the elder plaintiffs should have won, that you could link to? One thing I am interested in knowing is whether the WTS had declared a trust prior to the lawsuit. I imagine this is standard practice after the fiasco they had in Texas a while back, but I don't think the court ever reached that point, or at least not in the documents I read on your site. I tend to think this whole episode was valuable, not because the elders should have won, but because it raised awareness about the extent to which the WTS steamrolls internal dissent and any inclination not to do exactly as they say.