i thought we needed carpenters and plumbers in paradise...oh well... the hypocrisy.
to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territoryre: experienced attorneys and paralegals needed at bethel.
dear brothers:.
The attorney/client privilege card, huh?
Technically, its the attorney's duty of confidentiality, which is even broader than attorney-client privilege. It prohibits attorneys from ever using confidential information and secrets learned in the course of representation against a former client. If an attorney tries, the former client can go into court and get the lawyer booted from the case.
i thought we needed carpenters and plumbers in paradise...oh well... the hypocrisy.
to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territoryre: experienced attorneys and paralegals needed at bethel.
dear brothers:.
i thought we needed carpenters and plumbers in paradise...oh well... the hypocrisy.
to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territoryre: experienced attorneys and paralegals needed at bethel.
dear brothers:.
We are hoping to locate several experienced attorneys and paralegals who have exceptional analytical, research, and writing abilities.
This is awfully picky considering the compensation they are offering, isn't it? Given the higher-education ban (reaffirmed in this letter, no less) they impose, I'm guessing that any JW with a law license and the ability to fog a mirror qualifies, analytical abilities be damned.
in his first talk of the week the co mentioned that people don't get df'd for joining the military or registering to vote because they are already gone, as compared with smoking secretly, which would merit df'ing.. i have been toying around with registering to vote in the next election (us) so this intrigues me..
I thought voting was a "conscience matter" now, no?
i thought we needed carpenters and plumbers in paradise...oh well... the hypocrisy.
to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territoryre: experienced attorneys and paralegals needed at bethel.
dear brothers:.
Wonder if they have them sign a confidentiality agreement so they can't talk about what they defend..
Lawyers don't make for very good whistleblowers, whether they have signed any agreement or not.
If a lawyer wants to break his or her duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the client and blow the whistle on something, it sure better be some kind of ongoing, serious criminal conduct, unless he or she wants to risk being disbarred.
christian congregation of jehovahs witnesses.
2821 route 22, patterson, ny 12563-2237 phone: (845) 306-1100.
january 13, 2015. to all bodies of elders in the united states branch territory.
So do they have to be licensed in NY? Around here you have to be licensed in every state you work in, not just the one you are currently employed.
To be a corporate in-house counsel in NY you do not need to be admitted to the bar in NY unless you regularly appear in court on behalf of your employer. You just have to register, which is basically a formaility. The same or similar rule goes most everywhere. It doesn't matter where the office is that the attorney works out of. To appear in court, you have to be licensed in the jurisdiction in which the court sits, either permanently or for that case only (pro hac vice).
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
NG: I neglected to respond to this
That’s what I don’t get. How does one “minimize liability" by not reporting cases of child molestation? Please explain that to me in legal terms, as a lawyer.
If you look at the 1989 letter introduced at trial, it is obviously about protecting the organization from legal liability. It goes on and on about how litigious our society is and how opposers will want to enforce what they perceive as their "rights" - with "rights" always in scare quotes, to dismiss the idea that they actually exist. And then it went on to say that this is why elders have to keep judicial proceedings and related matters confidential. They were concerned about being sued for defamation and the like by people who were disgrunted over judicial matters.
In retrospect, that was not the best strategy in terms of shielding the organization and congregations from liability, but there was certainly enough there for Simons to argue that minimizing liability was a motive in forming their policy. He used the letter -effectively, I think - to rebut the argument that the confidentiality policy served a doctrinal purpose, and instead to argue that it served a financial one.
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
That is well and good, but remember that Law should always be objective and blind. Even if you have some sort of serious grudge against Watchtower, justified or not, that should have no bearing whatsoever on the correct application of Law in this particular and specific case. Work on separating your very sharp legal mind from your emotions.Oh please. Thanks for the lesson about established legal principles and what I should work on. Get over yourself with the justice is blind shtick and I should know better. This is an internet forum, and I'm free to express my opinion on both the legal merits of the case and the moral culpability of the Watchtower organization. You are responding to my view on the latter. There are all kinds of reprehensible behavior that the law does not usually punish. It doesn't mean that just because I'm an attorney I can't hope for an outcome that I believe to be just from a normative perspective, regardless of established law.
My opinion is based on what happened in this case, not a general grievance with the Watchtower organization or my "emotions." I have commented numerous times on this forum that I think plaintiffs who sue for shunning should lose, so I am certainly not forming my opinion just because Watchtower is a defendant.
To illustrate my point about reprehensible behavior, I point to the story of David Cash, Jr. Google his name if you don't know the story. He did nothing while his friend raped and murdered a little girl in a casino bathroom. There was no law under which he could be charged under the "established legal principles" that you refer to. Just because someone is an attorney doesn't mean they can't recognize that something bad was done and support a novel theory to charge him if one existed, does it? Or do attorneys have to get on a soapbox and say you can't do anything to this guy, because there has never been a duty to act ever since the English common law, and so on.
being that this is not "ex jws" and in fact, more driven by atheists talking a bunch of crap, im not even going to address you people like you know anything about jws because you dont.
nor am i going to assume you know the bible because none of you do.. and yes, im speaking down at you all because you men have actually went out your way to make a site to speak down at an entire group of people.
yet i bet you cant even handle a single uswer talking down at you, like you talk down about jws can you?.
the movie american sniper is breaking box office records and of course there is some irony that a movie about a sniper is released on martin luther king day (who was shot by one).. but of course there is a world of difference between an assassin and a military sniper ... or is there?.
some are making a big stink about it and claiming that "snipers are cowards".
it seems unfair to me.
