It may not be a big win for the Rick Simons, since if this stands he loses about 2/3 of his fee, but it's still a big win. This is the highest court to decide that this kind of duty to prevent child abuse can be applied to a religious organization. Expect further appeals.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
105
LATEST NEWS: CANDANCE CONTI VERIDICT READY - WT LOST!!!!!!!
by Viva la Vida ini'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .
opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.
the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.
-
-
-
105
LATEST NEWS: CANDANCE CONTI VERIDICT READY - WT LOST!!!!!!!
by Viva la Vida ini'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .
opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.
the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.
-
-
Chaserious
It looks like the full opinion is not up yet. But this means WTS wins on punitive damages (i.e. they dont have to pay any). There were two arguments on punitive damages, so we have to see the opinion to know what the basis for the court's ruling is. Either side can appeal to the CA Supreme Court, since they both came out a loser on an issue. -
16
What is the most current information on the Ricco indictments of Don Adams re: Menlo Park?
by TerryWalstrom indid this quietly go away?.
details, please.
.
-
-
Chaserious
Here is a link to the 17 page order dismissing the most recent case in May 2014 (I say most recent because it appears that five separate cases were filed in federal court between 2010-2013, apart from the state case).
-
109
Happy at Bethel. Can't believe what I'm seeing.
by Pubsinger inapologies if this has already been posted but i am speechless.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnbmyudrwgs&x-yt-ts=1422327029&x-yt-cl=84838260#t=72.
-
-
Chaserious
I guess the "private audience" was supposed to be 500 of his closest Bethelite friends. Who would have thought one would possibly share with anyone else? -
68
What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015
by ABibleStudent inim not an attorney and i could not record the hearing, so please forgive me if i make mistakes in relating what i remember of the oral argument hearing for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society on january 14, 2015 and the length of this post.. i arrived at the civic center/union plaza in san francisco, ca about 7:30. the area is very nice with a few homeless people sleeping in the park across from the courthouse.
it took me about 10 minutes to find the clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks office opened, the two clerks who i talked with were very polite and helpful.
the arguments for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society were scheduled 5th out of (i think) 8. while i was in the office a cameraman and another person for nbc arrived asking about the hearing for candace contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.
-
-
Chaserious
A nonfeasance theory was the thrust of Simons’ entire case at trial.
In his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF Simons simply asserted a new and wholly different theory of liability—misfeasance.
If you had fixed it I would not have commented.I knew what you meant - you are right that the theory at trial was nonfeasance. But I think my point still stands. He put 2 pages in his brief arguing misfeasance. It's just a long-shot, alternative basis to uphold the jury verdict. It's not abandonment of his original theory; that is what lawyers are supposed to do on appeal. Although you may be right that when he started writing the appeal brief, he realized that the body of existing law supporting the trial judge's ruling was rather thin.
No doubt the false assumptions in your first two sentences serves your purpose.
I didn't think I made any assumptions; I just described your posts. Isn't it true that you explained why you believe the law doesn't support a verdict for Conti? -
68
What I Saw & Heard in the Oral Argument Hearing on January 14, 2015
by ABibleStudent inim not an attorney and i could not record the hearing, so please forgive me if i make mistakes in relating what i remember of the oral argument hearing for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society on january 14, 2015 and the length of this post.. i arrived at the civic center/union plaza in san francisco, ca about 7:30. the area is very nice with a few homeless people sleeping in the park across from the courthouse.
it took me about 10 minutes to find the clerks office for the court on the first floor, which opened at 8:00.. once the clerks office opened, the two clerks who i talked with were very polite and helpful.
the arguments for jane doe (i.e., candace conti) versus the watchtower bible & tract society were scheduled 5th out of (i think) 8. while i was in the office a cameraman and another person for nbc arrived asking about the hearing for candace contis case.. the courtroom for the 1st appellate court is on the 4th floor and takes up most of that floor.
-
-
Chaserious
4rationality,
I see you recently joined here, and in your first comment suggested that sex abuse suits against Watchtower in general are futile. Then in your second comment above, you explained why you believe the law does not support a verdict for Candace Conti specifically. I hope you will tell us more about yourself.
Also, I have a question. You indicated that:
Richard Simons, in his RESPONDENT’S BRIEF, all but abandoned his nonfeasance arguments that so impressed Judge Robert McGuiness and the lay jurors. Why would he do such a thing? Perhaps someone explained the Principles of American tort law relevant to nonfeasance liability claims.
Can I ask why you say that Simons "abandoned" his nonfeasance argument in his respondent's brief? The facts would suggest otherwise. He spent approximately two pages of the argument section of his brief on his misfeasance theory, and approximately twelve pages explaining why he believes that liability can be imposed for nonfeasance on the basis of a special relationship. While the misfeasance theory may not be very strong, adding two pages in an attempt to assert an alternative basis to affirm the judgment doesn't seem to me an abandonment of his primary theory of the case.
-
15
Have JW relatives disinherited you? (especially Canadian)
by berrygerry ininteresting court case whereby the entire will was declared void because the father was racist.. would that not also apply to jw's who disinherit their non-jw family?.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/29/judge-rejects-ontario-mans-racist-will-that-disinherited-daughter-for-having-bastard-white-son/.
-
-
Chaserious
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/289385/thanks-mom-dad-oh-thanks-mother
In the link in the above thread, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld a couple's decision to give away (actually loan away) a large amount of assets to the Watchtower Society. It wasn't clear from that case if the children got anything at all, because that wasn't really the issue.
In almost every state of the U.S., parents can disinherit their children for any reason at all. A problem might come up if it is actually written in the will "and Susie gets nothing because of her [racial epithet] husband and child." Similarly, as the article says, it may not be enforced if it is tied to some contingency that's against public policy. For example "half of my estate to Susie, unless she is married to a Jew at the time of my death." But in the case the OP mentioned, there was nothing in the will that indicated the disinheritance had to do with racism. The racism came in through extrinsic evidence. So I don't think the same result would happen in the U.S. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this decision gets overturned on appeal.
I assume that my own parents have disinherited me. Like Blondie, I would be rather surprised if they ended up leaving me anything.
-
109
Happy at Bethel. Can't believe what I'm seeing.
by Pubsinger inapologies if this has already been posted but i am speechless.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnbmyudrwgs&x-yt-ts=1422327029&x-yt-cl=84838260#t=72.
-
-
Chaserious
Just watched this for the first time - thanks for reposting EoM. I had tried yesterday, but all of the links were down. I can't imagine that this video was made without being officially sanctioned, if not officially planned. They have footage at numerous locations across several Bethel facilities and would have probably needed the OK of a number of overseers. Part of me thinks that it was designed to go viral, but having a pro-JW video go viral is a little tricky since you can't have it on Youtube without having a bunch of apostate comments. Is there a version with a small enough file size to distribute it by email?
So how many of the people who appeared in this video do you think will be posters on this site 5 years from now? I can run the pool, and the closest guess will get a special prize in 2020.
-
7
Does anyone have any information on lawsuits in regards to JW's victimizing the mentally ill?
by lme123 ini am a former jw, 14 years removed.
i moved out of state away from my jw family for 10 years, and currently moved back to my home town 2 years ago.
it was a great healing process for me, especially being away from all of the confusing and controversial influences i was raised with.
-
-
Chaserious
one day I hope the many adult rape victims will get represented
I am a little confused by this statement. What is the connection between the OP's question and "adult rape?" And who are these many victims?
-
7
why is this not an issue with the wt org?
by sowhatnow ini watched this and thought hmm, so when getting a birth certificate, your handing your child over to be owned by the govt.
anyone with the 'stock certificate of manifest' [how much your worth] is owned by their govt.. the wt is ok with everyone including themselves being owned by 'satans govt' lol.. in theory no jw should have a birth certificate.
especially since they let people in the past, die over that refusal to have a govt issued certificate.. they assign you a bond /stock number, its the tiny red letters on your certificate.. and you are now property of that government , so you have no rights to your children, they can take them if they feel you are in the wrong.. they and we are slaves to a govt.. [our last names are a 'brand' creepy.
-
-
Chaserious
whats the reason for all the crazy conspiracy theories?
Some people just can't take anything at face value and begin with the assumption that there is a conspiracy behind everything. Being skeptical and questioning things has its value, but when you begin with a conclusion, search high and low for any shred of evidence to support that predetermined conclusion, and ignore any evidence to the contrary as "all part of the conspiracy," voila - you have a conspiracy theorist.