Look at it this way, lose a friend, gain an enemy! Win win!
Posts by 144001
-
36How Many Friends Did You Lose Over This Election?
by JustMeNonJDub ini lost one, and i am saddened by it.
i may disagree with friends over politics and/or religion, but the only reason i would cut off a friend is if they betrayed me.
anyone else lost friends or cut off friends because of politics or religion?.
-
-
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
Paralipomenon:
The bond is not $100k/month. I didn't bother to look at the documents again but my recollection is that the $86K is an annual bond premium.
I think you may have been confused because the $100k/month was mentioned by Conti's counsel as post judgment interest which is accruing on her judgment (post judgment interest accrues at the rate of 10%/annum). Conti contended that the amount that she will eventually be entitled to collect is growing, because of the accrual of interest on the judgment.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
Scott,
The "officer" is the judge.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
Band,
They cited no precedent, only the code section I quoted above. I do not see any ethical violations here because the language of the code supports their argument, even if it is a very weak argument.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
Sir82:
Only the WTBTS lawyers can speak to their strategy, but my guess is that the WTBTS believes that a convincing witness will somehow persuade the judge and overcome the lack of legal authority upon which the relief requested by the WTBTS can be granted.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
The WTBTS reply papers are available now. Essentially, their argument is that the relevant law, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.710 includes the following provision:
" (d) The officer may prescribe terms and conditions to implement this section."
In my opinion, the WTBTS argument is devoid of merit. I spent only a small amount of time researching this issue and found no cases that support an interpretation of the aforementioned provision as allowing the Court to ignore well-established rules of statutory construction and allow substitution of real estate for the bond.
The WTBTS is represented by a huge law firm with significant legal resources that most definitely put in far more time researching this issue than I did. Their failure to cite any cases that support the intepretation of the above-quoted provision of the law means that there are most likely no cases that support the WTBTS interpretation of the code.
Nevertheless, the WTBTS made the best argument it could under the circumstances. They have a chance to prevail on this motion, but I think it is very likely that the WTBTS' motion to substitute Patterson for the bond will be defeated.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
Oral arguments are allowed by a subtantial majority of California courts (some demand written arguments only - it's up to the judge to set the policy for his/her courtroom), and no special permission is needed for this. It's oral evidence that is generally not allowed unless the court gives special permission, as occurred here. In other words, it's ok for lawyers to argue the motion, but the court wants any substantive evidence that is presented by the lawyers to be in written form, not oral testimony.
The WTBTS claims that the witness will be a representative of the WTBTS qualified to speak about the past and present history of Patterson, its appraised value, and the WTBTS' future plans for Patterson.
As for Simons, there would be no reason for him to introduce oral testimony. His argument is a legal one that does not require the introduction of any evidence whatsoever. He is simply arguing that the law does not allow the substitution that the WTBTS is requesting, or the reduction in the bond amount. Based on some very limited research I did on Simons claims, it appears that his argument is a good one.
Nevertheless, there's no need for anyone to be concerned about this issue. Even if the court grants the WTBTS' motion, Conti's judgment will be more than adequately collateralized. No matter how the court rules, Conti will not collect anything until she either settles with the WTBTS or the appeal and this case is resolved in one way or another, so this is not a huge issue for Conti, as it will neither help nor hinder her in collecting her judgment.
Edited to add: One more point, to clarify the situation, Simons will indeed be presenting oral argument in court tomorrow. But he will not be seeking to introduce any oral testimony by witnesses, as the argument he will be making does not require the introduction of any evidence at all.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
The Court ruled this morning that it would grant the WTBTS' request to allow oral testimony at the hearing on the WTBTS' motion. In California, oral testimony is not generally allowed at a motion hearing (i.e., all evidence considered is in writing, and it mainly consists of sworn affidavits/declarations from the parties or their counsel), so the WTBTS made a special request to allow oral testimony, and the Court granted the special request. Here is the relevant text of the ruling granting the WTBTS special request:
"PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR. Defendants' request to present oral testimony at the hearing concerning the Patterson property is GRANTED. The court finds good cause for oral testimony not exceeding 15 minutes."
The WTBTS filed its reply papers yesterday. As of this morning, they were not available to the public yet, but will likely be available some time today.
-
30
What's the easiest way to explain the gospel?
by proclaim_truth injust wondering what exactly the gospel is, and how i should understand it to be.
if someone were to come up to me and ask "what is the gospel?
thanks so much, this means a lot.
-
-
144001
The easiest way to explain it is to state the reality: it's fiction.
-
43
I grew up not fearing old age
by Sour Grapes inas a teenage jw, i grew up believing that i was not going to finish high school nor would i get old and have to die like my grandparents did.
well, i did finish high school, as did my children and my grandchildren and old age has not been kind to me.
i don't like to look at pictures from 40 years ago, from a time when i was healthy and i had the goal of "stay alive till 75.
-
-
144001
<<<<We all are going to die at some ppint in time so we need to love life and live like there is no tomorrow.>>>>
Amen. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you shall die!