Posts by DavePerez

8

Conti v Watchtower - November 26 court documents in pdf

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the latest court documents, in pdf, relating to "candace conti vs the watchtower bible and tract society of new york" as certified on november 26, 2012.. .

clerk's notice re certification of record on appeal to the court of appeals.. .

jw leaks.

DavePerez

As an tag-on to the comment by Chaserious, in addition to ruling on the matter, the Court of Appeals may send the case back to the lower court for re-hearing, so it's hardly a risk-free or quick process. Court watchers may find it more interesting to watch paint dry.

36

New Pattern regarding Science in the Awake

by konceptual99 in

reading the first couple of awakes for 2013 i think there is a pattern developing.. they have the regular "could it have happened by chance" article on something amazing in nature but they are also interviewing a scientist who is also a witness.

this is a pretty interesting tack on a number of levels.. firstly it is sending out the implicit message that "look, this educated person accepts creation, the flood and every other account that is at odds with generally accepted science, so that should give you confidence that you are right as well".

secondly, as a magazine designed for public comsumption is suggests to non-witnesses that there are many well educated people who accept the bible.

DavePerez

RichNpc1 said-

It all goes back to original sin.That requires the existence of Adam and Eve. Then came Moses and the Law with all the animal sacrifices for sin. All of which required Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice for sin.

The running theme of needing a sacrifice to atone for some sin is a constant in the Bible, isn't it? "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission".

Hmmm, so let's follow the "who benefits?" trail from that policy: who profits from the constant need for ritual sacrifice of animals and the need to slaughter aimals in a kosher manner, literally giving the Priestly class a piece of the slaughtered animal as the 'fee' for services provided?

From http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/levitsac.html

The animal was then skinned and cut into pieces by the offeror (or priest), and either entirely burnt on the altar or just the fat burnt on the altar, with any remainder being burnt outside the camp. This "burning" amounted to cooking the animal, and the animal was then eaten by the priests, or by the priests along with the one who had brought the animal.

So the sacrificial ritual was a long way to go to impose for some to impose a mandatory tax on food (under penalty of death by stoning) benefitting the Priestly class. Pretty clever, if it weren't so duplicitous.

36

New Pattern regarding Science in the Awake

by konceptual99 in

reading the first couple of awakes for 2013 i think there is a pattern developing.. they have the regular "could it have happened by chance" article on something amazing in nature but they are also interviewing a scientist who is also a witness.

this is a pretty interesting tack on a number of levels.. firstly it is sending out the implicit message that "look, this educated person accepts creation, the flood and every other account that is at odds with generally accepted science, so that should give you confidence that you are right as well".

secondly, as a magazine designed for public comsumption is suggests to non-witnesses that there are many well educated people who accept the bible.

DavePerez

Leolaia said-

"None of that has anything really to do with biology, genetics, or zoology. His opinion about evolution is not necessarily informed by anything in his expert knowledge."

The guy earned a bachelor's degree in EE (electronic engineering), a field of study that has NOTHING to do with life sciences (he's certainly not a biomedical/biological engineer, a discipline which blends biological sciences with methods of engineering). While he presumably can design circuit boards, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with biology. He has a PhD in computer science and robotics, but again: neither has anything to do with biological life processes.

Not that he can't understand biology (just as a biologist can learn electronics on their own), just that there's no proof that he has studied it in a formalized method. You wouldn't ask a biologist their opinion on a circuit board: why would you ask an electronic engineer for their opinion on biology?

It's intellectually dishonest for WT to offer his "educated opinion" as evidence on any topic outside of capacitors and robotics. But it IS par for the course: one of their evolution pamphlets quote-mined from scientists where at least their foot-notes made it clear to disclose that the scientists actually believed in evolution (although the comments actually expressed their doubts over a particular proposed mechanism of evolution).

112

Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?

by metatron in

jw
friends

i've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.

changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!

after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.

DavePerez

Many religions exist apart from publishing operations, and the REAL money is in generating donations from members, not in randomly knocking on doors to find 'interested ones' to give away magazines. I think of their publications as a loss leader, or an excuse to go out and recruit members (or even leaving the WTs in laundrymats, etc). The newer mags are less lengthy, perhaps based on marketing studies that show that few people read the entire mag. So why bother putting out 32 pages, when 16 pages is more effective and less-costly?

Perhaps the shift to on-line efforts will mean that interested ones will be encouraged to contact the local hall, OR, they will leave their name and address on the web site, and JWs from the local congregation will be directed to those who are interested. Think of the technology as allowing for more targeted marketing efforts, hence more efficient, less wasteful.

102

Conti v Watchtower - Court Denies Watchtower Motion re: Substituting Bond - November 16 court documents in pdf

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the latest court documents, in pdf, relating to "candace conti v the watchtower bible and tract society of new york" as filed on november 16, 2012.. the watchtower society motion to substitute or reduce bond on appeal is denied.. www.jwleaks.org.

.

DavePerez

Doubting bro asked-

But if the WTS settles and drops their appeal, wouldn't this be bad case law for them?

No, as jury trial verdicts don't set legal precedents; subsequent jury cases are heard on their own individual merits, and are weighed (or SHOULD be weighed) by comparing the presented evidence with relevant existing laws/statutes.

Of course, jury trials don't always properly interpret the law, and the possibility for appeal exists to avoid a miscarriage of justice. It's only when you get to the level of an appellate court that new precedent is set (and not always, as the ruling must be 'published' and citeable to set precedent).

(PS someone mentioned class-action lawsuits above, but I'm not sure why: it's of no relevance to this matter.)

If they are sucessful on appeal, wouldn't that help them defend future suits with similar circumstances?

It's not likely this case would result in a new precedent if they win on appeal, so I doubt it. Not all appeal decisions result in new precedents, anyway.

Mindblown asked-

Are you positive the WTS is appealing the entire case, maybe only appealing with Motion to Substitute or Reduce Bond buying time to gather money?

I would think the judge/court would be pretty pissed after Conti accepted reduced damages only to turn around and appeal. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. That's exactly how the legal process works, as allowable by law.

WTBTS is appealing: the securitization of the judgment is required in order to start the appeal. You're confusing a procedural matter (bond substitution, a a financial matter) that has NOTHING to do with the facts of the Conti case which will be under review. The three judges haven't started evaluating the merits of the case itself, which likely will take a few years.

Unlike a jury trial, appeals are largely carried out on paper, with judges comparing evidence presented at trial and procedures used by judge, making sure it complies with existing law. Jury trials are like theatre, where juries are often swayed by emotions, etc, and justice doesn't always prevail (it's a well-known fact that juries often award victims with whom they sympathize). Hence why appellate processes exist: experienced judges are not swayed by emotions.

Before jury trial, I SUSPECT that WTBTS lawyers felt the case was weak, a slam-dunk to win (for a number of valid legal reasons, eg lack of CA mandatory reporting laws at the time, etc), and hence didn't feel strongly motivated to settle out before trial. If the case was stronger, it's likely you and I wouldn't have heard of it, as there's reportedly been many cases that have settled out, with both parties signing non-disclosure agreements.

Now that WTBTS has lost the first round, that doesn't change the same reasons WTBTS lawyers felt the case would eventually prevail, and hence why they are now likely less-motivated to settle out. As far as the "damaging PR" angle, that wad has already been shot: the damage has been done, and it is what it is. So there goes that motivation to settle, at this point. If anything, a victory on appeal is only more desirable to WTBTS, to mitigate the damage.

In his response, Simons said:

Although the concern of the Church Defendants for Ms. Conti is heartwarming, if somewhat belated, their request is specifically prohibited by statute.
Well technically, it's not that the property substitution REQUEST is forbidden by statute, since CA law says that the plaintiff CAN voluntarily waive their right to securitization, for whatever reason(s) they determine to be in their best interests (and certainly, most people would find it in their best interests to NOT have to cough up an extra $200k, in the event they end up losing the appeal!). If not voluntarily waived by the plaintiff, some CA appeals have been secured with letters/lines of credit, even though it's not listed in the relevant statute. So there's a measure of flexibility allowed, and judges are willing to rubber-stamp whatever securitization agreements are made between the parties.

However, in the response to the motion, Simons made it clear they weren't willing to accept the property substitution, and hence the court was reluctant to order it against their will. So even though the odds were very low that the WT would prevail on the substitution motion without the plaintiff's cooperation, there's no harm in asking: 'rare' does not mean 'NEVER'.

And note that Simons effort to block WTBTS oral presentation to the court failed, as the court said there was good cause to grant WT's request to allow them to present their oral argument. So the request, even without their cooperation wasn't completely devoid of legal merit, or the court wouldn't have allowed the hearing on the matter. But it didn't cost WTBTS anything to ask, and as stated above, it's a cost that Conti could've avoided if WT prevails on appeal, and no one can say afterwards that at the WTBTS at least didn't try to prevent the eventuality.

BTW, that $86k anual bond premium is only about 7% of the amount of interest that WTBTS will to pay if they lose (10% interest rate means $1 mil/year they'd owe Conti, in addition to the $12mil principal), so the bond premium is a small amount compared to the interest.

102

Conti v Watchtower - Court Denies Watchtower Motion re: Substituting Bond - November 16 court documents in pdf

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the latest court documents, in pdf, relating to "candace conti v the watchtower bible and tract society of new york" as filed on november 16, 2012.. the watchtower society motion to substitute or reduce bond on appeal is denied.. www.jwleaks.org.

.

DavePerez

This ruling over bond substitution is simply a procedural matter which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the merits of the case itself. Consider it housekeeping before the appeal can begin.

102

Conti v Watchtower - Court Denies Watchtower Motion re: Substituting Bond - November 16 court documents in pdf

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the latest court documents, in pdf, relating to "candace conti v the watchtower bible and tract society of new york" as filed on november 16, 2012.. the watchtower society motion to substitute or reduce bond on appeal is denied.. www.jwleaks.org.

.

DavePerez

Interesting info, 144.001.

The Alameda Co Court House website shows that a $17 Mil bond was posted on Sept 20 by WTBTS, with an annual premium of $86k (due in December). So whatever arrangement WT made with Travelers is water under the bridge now (although it seems likely they didn't use Patterson for security with Travelers, as they stated in their motion that it was unencumbered at the time of filing, so free of any liens when they sought to use it for substitution in the denied motion).

144k said-

The good news about this is it will put more pressure on the WTBTS to settle up with Conti; $86K/year of bond premium is now added to almost $100k/month of post-judgment interest that is accruing on the judgment ($11M judgment @10% interest per annum).

Yup.

The bad news is she likely doesn't have the deep pockets of WTBTS, so if the appeal fails, she's going to owe a WHOLE lot more $$$ for those annual premium costs. It's a bold move to deny, unless she's just planning to file BK anyway if she loses the appeal.

Iam said-

Traveler's aint gonna bond em for free...so the total property is going to have to be much more valuble than the the cash they are putting up. property doesn't pay bills (atleast not in this market)...cash pays bills.

The bond is basically an IOU from Traveler's saying they will pay Conti IF and ONLY IF WTBTS fails to pay the judgment if the appeal fails. The issue of WT securing with Travelers is a separate deal, ie whether they posted cash or property as collateral.

43

"Papa Johns CEO Threatens To Make His Pizza Taste Worse Than It Already Does If Obamacare Not Repealed"

by FlyingHighNow in

this is so brilliant:.

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/11/14/papa-johns-ceo-threatens-to-make-his-pizza-taste-worse-than-it-already-does-if-obamacare-not-repealed/?fb_comment_id=fbc_464152183636910_4819387_464471203605008.

papa johns will not back down to the big government stronghold trying to suffocate the fortune of ceo john schnatter.

DavePerez

Is Denny's really calling it an "Obamacare Tax", lol? And taking it out on the waitresses? Is this his idea of reverse-psychology?

Don't you love it when CEOs decide to make ill-conceived marketing decisions for their businesses? Does he think this approach will appeal to sore-loser Mitt voters, hoping they'll come in to pay the "Obamacare Tax" and whine about it? Or is he trying to appeal to those who voted for Obama, thinking they'll not be offended? No matter how you cut it, it's just dumb marketing, bad PR (self-inflicted, shooting themselves in the foot).

Some in business would rather quibble over politics than run their businesses, and fortunately the capitalist system will hold them accountable for their dumb decisions (that is, unless they're "too big to fail": those guys are Teflon).

43

"Papa Johns CEO Threatens To Make His Pizza Taste Worse Than It Already Does If Obamacare Not Repealed"

by FlyingHighNow in

this is so brilliant:.

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/11/14/papa-johns-ceo-threatens-to-make-his-pizza-taste-worse-than-it-already-does-if-obamacare-not-repealed/?fb_comment_id=fbc_464152183636910_4819387_464471203605008.

papa johns will not back down to the big government stronghold trying to suffocate the fortune of ceo john schnatter.

DavePerez

As Jon Stewart pointed out, it's a crying shame that Papa Johns CEO is in a pizza-delivery business where they can't simply export their manufacturing jobs to China (and change the name to "Papa Sans Pizza"). Oh, wait: maybe they DID, that's why their pizza tastes like it's been shipped from overseas in a freight container?

I think Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head when he said that CEOs should just stand up and take the blame for why they don't want to offer their employees competitive compensation packages, rather than relying on the scapegoat de jour as an excuse to why they don't. In this case, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as this kind of politicization is likely to make their business lose customers (as above).

8

Did God invent the sword?

by Badfish in

in genesis 3, when adam and eve are kicked out of the garden, it says there is a flaming sword guarding the way to the tree of life.. this was before adam and eve had any children yet.. but metalworking and forging are not mentioned until tubal-cain -- adam's great great great great great grandson -- comes along.

not sure if it means he invented the forging of tools or if he was just a blacksmith, though.. but back to the main point.

if there was this sword guarding the way to the tree of life, does that mean god invented swords?.

DavePerez

Bible apologists say the story was written much later, and hence relied on imagery that was well-understood by contemporary listeners/readers circa 1,000 BCE, well after the sword was invented. But yes, technically it is a continuity error, like when an extra in the background of a scene of a Civil War movie is wearing a Rolex wrist-watch.

So maybe a better question to ponder is: if God clearly had the capability to guard certain trees to prevent humans from eating from them, then why didn't He post an angel with a flaming sword on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil BEFORE Eve could ate from it? Did an omniscient God (who knows all, including the future) not see it coming?