as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.
The notion of the WTS being deprived of due process is ridiculous since the Courts ARE due process and punitive damaged are, well, punitive.
Well, having your case heard before a court does not by itself satisfy due process. There have been thousands of appeals in the history of the United States on due process grounds where the parties had their case heard by a lower court. And if you follow the link to the State Farm case in the prior post, you will see that not all punitive damage awards are constitutional.
As to the 10th Amendment limiting federal judicial powers, that certainly is not a theory that has ever been endorsed by the Supreme Court. It may be a minority academic view that some agree with, but I don't think you would get very far with that argument in the federal courts.
so, the two local congregations were planning to hold their memorial together at 7:30 at the local community center, but they had to make a last-minute change to their own hall, and i'm pretty sure it was because of me.. let me explain.... at work on monday afternoon, a co-worker returned from her lunchbreak and showed me the memorial invitation that was waiitng in her door when she went home for lunch.
i noticed the sticker on the back indicated the memorial was being held, not at the local hall, but at the community center.
from a past (non-jw) event i attended there, i knew they didn't allow alcohol (unless you pay for security guards), so i wrote to the center's coordinator:.
I don't really think the OP did anything wrong, especially since he says his intention was not to get them kicked out. However, for all those saying "nobody is above the law" and "rules are rules" and that kind of thing, I'm assuming you don't have a problem when the WTS does little petty things to enforce laws the violations of which seem kind of harmless. Like getting websites to take down materials for copyright violations and that kind of thing.
as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.
I agree that it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would ever hear this appeal. First, the California Supreme Court would have to agree to hear it, which is a discretionary appeal. Even if that happened, only about 1% of cases appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court are actually heard by that court. But the test for whether it can hear an appeal from a state supreme court doesn't have anything to do with the 10th Amendment. The test is whether the case meets the requirements of a federal statute, 28 USC 1257. The case must also meet the requirements of Article III of the US Constitution.
Since punitive damages are involved in this case, it is possible that these would be grounds for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have heard state-law cases involving punitive damages in the recent past, such as State Farm v. Campbell. The theory is that the improper award of punitives or excessive award of punitives can be a violation of due process, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Watchtower could argue that awarding punitive damages for the purposes of forcing a change in policy is a due process violation, and that would be grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
So, that's my amateur roadmap to how the U.S. Supreme Court could hear the case. I think it's extraordinarily unlikely, but not impossible.
as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.
At this point it's a situation of who presents the best argument - was there a legal error(s) during the civil trial that led to the judgement against the WT Society. Or, should the lower court's judgement stand.
Am I correct? And is this the process in California?
What you said seems about right. It's a panel of three judges, where two out of three wins. I believe California is a state that guarantees the right to oral argument (unless waived by the parties), although in some states the judges have to grant it.
It's not just the possibility of a legal error during the trial, in the strict sense of the term, that can be appealed. Many appeals are based on the argument that the case or a party should have been dismissed before there was even a trial. I am sure one of the WT's arguments will be that they should have been let out of the case by the trial judge before there ever was a jury trial.
as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.
I am almost certain there is no tsunami of pedo cases waiting to see what happens here. It seems like a lot of people think that, but I just don't see it. That's not how plaintiffs' lawyers operate, unless there is a case that overturns old law, which is not applicable here. If they have a case, potentially worth millions, they don't sit with their thumbs up their behinds on it. Statutes of limitations get closer or run out, potential witnesses could move away or die, and the plaintiff could decide to jump ship to a different lawyer.
The WT is probably appealing this case because they don't want to pay the judgment, and because this verdict was the first of its kind and they think they have a good chance of getting it overturned by a more academic and dispassionate review by an appeals court. Although there is always the angle that the institutional defendant can try to outlast the individual plaintiff to pressure them to settle, but I don't think they view Conti as someone who will settle on their terms.
Two competing organizations at work here that want to indoctrinate the youth at any cost. No surprise that the one with an earthly army won over the one with a heavenly army.
as most suspected, the wts filed their brief, at least it looks that way..... http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
it also notes aob in excess of word count limit.. wonder if they did that to buy more time?.
I'm sure the Contis didn't think the case was over. I'm surprised that anyone thought they were going to file an appeal and hire a new appeals lawyer and then just forget about filing the appeal. But yes, the appeal is not a rehearing. It's an allegation of legal errors. There will be no testimony and the parties don't have to attend.
alameda county administrator's premium pay end hearst/article/premium_article_tools_480.tpl end premium_story_header.tpl article/types/premium_story.tpl hearst/common/author_name.tpl by matier & ross.
e hearst/common/author_name.tpl article_timestamp.tpl march 25, 2013. alameda county supervisors have really taken to heart the adage that government should run like a business, rewarding county administrator susan muranishi with the wall street-like wage of $423,664 a year.. for the rest of her life.. according to county pay records, in addition to her $301,000 base salary, muranishi receives:-- $24,000, plus change, in "equity pay" to guarantee that she makes at least 10 percent more than anyone else in the county.. -- about $54,000 a year in "longevity" pay for having stayed with the county for more than 30 years.. -- an annual performance bonus of $24,000.. -- and an additional $9,000 a year for serving on the county's three-member surplus property authority, an ad hoc committee of the board of supervisors that oversees the sale of excess land.. like other county executives, muranishi also gets an $8,292-a-year car allowance.. muranishi has been with the county for 38 years, and she's 63. when retirement day comes, she'll be getting a lot more than a gold watch.. that's because, according to the county auditor's office, muranishi's annual pension will be equal to the dollar total of her entire yearly package - $413,000.
she also has a separate executive private pension plan, for which the county chips in $46,500 a year.. "and she's worth every dime," said supervisor scott haggerty, who was on the board when it promoted muranishi to county administrator in 1995, voted for her and joined in approving her base pay and perks.. "we're lucky to have her," haggerty said.. he likens the job of running the county administration to being ceo of a $2.4 billion corporation, with 9,000 employees.. granted, the $2.4 billion is taxpayer money, and the county isn't set up to turn a profit.
I am not on the left coast and I have no idea how she's done in her job from an objective point of view. There are certainly lots of public servants who milk the system. But if someone is truly a great manager, I have no problem paying her that much in taxpayer money. I mean if you fire her and pay someone $100,000 out of principle to do the same job and that person doesn't run the county as efficiently and costs the taxpayers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by saving a few hundred thousand in salary.
if doctrinal explanations are missing from the article, it is because they are also missing from the magazine.. i would like to give my thanks again to my source for supplying me with the magazine article weeks ahead of its scheduled release.
it showed remarkable courage, because risks were taken.
Great article. If only active members gave a tenth of the amount of thought to the doctrinal changes and basis (or lack thereof) for all of this new light.
