Curious Mind
JoinedPosts by Curious Mind
-
4
Help with contracts.
by Triple A inthey said i can not have mine annulled.
it had been considered by the bethel service department and due to the length of time i had been baptised and that i had signed other contracts with the wts, such as becoming a pioneer they could not annul it.
mentioned on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/105267/1.ashx.
-
24
law school
by John Doe inare there any lawyers here?
i'm a year from graduating with a double major in math and english, and am considering law school.
any ideas/pros/cons?
-
Curious Mind
Lawyer Joke
Why do sharks not eat lawyers?
Professional courtesy
-
24
law school
by John Doe inare there any lawyers here?
i'm a year from graduating with a double major in math and english, and am considering law school.
any ideas/pros/cons?
-
Curious Mind
Lawyer
-
78
My D/f appeal meeting went amazingly, but the still want to d/f me
by jwfacts insorry how long this is but i found the meeting very exciting.
the short version is i said directly that i do not believe in the wts, feel being d/f is unfair on my jw family so asked them to just leave me alone.
it didn't work.
-
Curious Mind
JWfacts - Congratualtions on a job well done, you must be feeling vey happy with yourself. I couldn't do, but I'm glad you were able to and fill us in on all the details. Sounds like you kknow your stuff and could string together a very clear and logical argument. Interesting that it's OK for elders to visit apostate sites ...
Telling them they're a cult - priceless! I loved the response to your threat to sue you 'but we have no money' - well dah! window washers are hardly going to make the rich list!
CM
-
24
law school
by John Doe inare there any lawyers here?
i'm a year from graduating with a double major in math and english, and am considering law school.
any ideas/pros/cons?
-
Curious Mind
My joke was that these are really just "quizzes" because in the real scheme of things, the only thing a law grad has to worry about is passing the licensing exam, otherwise known as the bar exam, in the jurisdiction that they want to live and practice. ; The exam varies somewhat.
I didn't realise that you are required to do double degrees also. But, we don't have a licensing exam here - you must to either the Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice which is a year long course or try and find a firm that will hire you and do all the required training - good luck! During this Dip you are required to show that you can do the work to the standard that is expected of a lawyer. After sucessully completing the Dip you can then get admitted to a Supreme Court. So we have 6.5 years of actual study that is based on continued assessment. Theres no cramming for a Bar exam - just all exams!
I know many people from Russia and Ukraine and it seems like it is pretty easy to become a lawyer there.
Yeah but try and get recognised outside Eurorope with one. In Australia their degrees are not recognised so they are required to do a law degree and get admitted over again. It's not just lawyers, Doctors who have trained outside a 'western' university also have a tough time of being recognised as a Dr and practising.
I think law schools should be more vocational in nature, but mine wasn't, and I think it would be good if some apprenticeship program was in place like in the old days to first become a lawyer.
The reason Australia went to a Grad Dip system of qualification was due to the competition for very few vacancies in law firms. The demand exceeded supply, as most law firms did not want to continue to invest money in junior lawyers only to see them leave to other firms. Thats progress. But the good thing is the Grad Dip is only a year whereas 'in house' legal training is in excess of 2 years, thats 2 years where you are the most junior and on the crappiest money - probably why all the old Partners are such miserable B's and make junior lawyers lives much harder than they should.
Best tip - apply for a Gov job - the work conditions, pay and career opportunites are better.
-
210
Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation
by DannyHaszard injehovah's loses comp case
church may be forced to pay millions
by jess wisloski.
-
Curious Mind
AuldSoul
It would always be more difficult to get a ruling overturned than to win the judgement in your favor on the first attempt, because (1) doing so requires acquiring the right to appeal, and once acquired (2) requires arguing the point of appeal so successfully that the standing judgement is overturned.
Whereas, in the initial hearing all that would be required is to get the Judge to side in favor of your argument in the case at hand.
See you did understood what I said - Yay. And don't forget that Judges don't really like to contradict each other, so it really is an uphill battle. Often it's better to appeal not just on your objections but also by introducing new evidence that is very compelling (although you have to prove this - and in the USA DNA results have been ruled NOT to be compelling enough for an appeal). So, compelling evidence is also a very hard argument to get an appeal. Clearly getting an appeal is the hardest part and you can be sure that a lawyer preparing for an appeal works a damn site harder than a lawyer preparing for first argument. It's also worth noting that in an appeal you can not rehash your original argument ... SO yep appeal is hard, damn hard - winning it is harder. With the first decision (you are dead right) you only need to convince the Judge of what you are proposing is absolutely correct - it's easier to convince a single Judge. Finally a note on appeals, they aren't usually heard by a single Judge (depends on your court), however a simple rule is the higher the court and the number of appeals then the higer the number of Judges on the bench to hear it. Convincing upto 7 experienced legal minds wouldn't be an easy feat...
CM
Sorry I didnt reply earlier - I went to bed. Its mid sunday morning here ...
-
210
Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation
by DannyHaszard injehovah's loses comp case
church may be forced to pay millions
by jess wisloski.
-
Curious Mind
AuldSoul
I can only answer your first question. The other question is too US specific for me.
(1) Is it more difficult to get the ruling of a Judge overturned than it is to win the judgement in the first place? I don't care about your imaginative musings of more factors that are not in evidence at this point, just a yes or no will suffice.
There is no yes or no answer - it depends. First you have to win the right of appeal - you can't appeal because you don't like the result.
In Adminstrative law (Tribunal, Federal then High Court) - there must be an error either in fact or of law. In Tribunal's (the first decison maker) it must be an error of fact - ie: the Judge failed to consider a fact of the case that may have resulted in a different decision or of law (Merits Review). In Courts (access only after a decision and appeal to the tribunal) it must be an error in law (Jurisdictional error) so if the Judge erred in deciding that the appealant was a 'worker' there could be an appeal - the decision can not be substituted by the Court, the Court can send it back to the Tribunal (sometimes with instructions) for the Tribunal to reconsider or remake their decision.
In Tort or Crim law (Magistrate, Supreme then High Court) - error can be in fact or error, but again there must have been a fault in the original decision, this is where counsel objections become important - if you object to a point of law and object then you have a better chance if you loose to make an appeal. If you failed to object you have 'agreed' with the point and cannot appeal on that ground.
Also Judges may allow an appeal to explore a legal question if a precendent doesn't exist or if there is a precendent, it's very old and time to check the legality (if you like) of the question. This is usually only for the Highest Court to decide.
In my area of law - Immigration - At the High Court level the Government (Dept of Immigration) wins about 95% of the time. Appealants are usually more successful in Tribunals (Refugee Review Tribunal or The Administrative Appeals Tribunal) than in Courts.
Hope this helps
CM
-
24
law school
by John Doe inare there any lawyers here?
i'm a year from graduating with a double major in math and english, and am considering law school.
any ideas/pros/cons?
-
Curious Mind
And finally keep in mind that all of the law school exams are actually just quizzes. The only real exam is the one after law school, the bar exam.
I can't get over how easy you guys in the US have it. In Australia you cannot do a straight law degree, you must either be a post grad student or do a double degree. If you are a post grad then you can do law in about 3.5 years of full time study, if you have to complete a double then the average is 5.5 years of full time study. All the preistly 11 subjects (degree requirements are the priestly 11 plus about 7/8 others) have exams, they are not quizzes, they are 2 or 3 hour exams, in huge halls, that require you to be able provide written solid legal reasoning to all the answers (yes you must quote and use cases properly) - although they are open book, the other subjects are either assessed by essay usually 5000 words or more or by exam. After you have your degree or during it you have to complete a 1 year Graduate Diploma in order to become admitted to the Supreme Court of your State or Territory. However, because of our Constitution, if you are admitted in one State or Territory you can simply apply to be admitted in another (Mutual Recognition Act) - you need to lodge a statutory declaration that you are a fit and proper person of good character and attend the ceremony in person (as you have to take the oath).
Good luck, studying law will either cultivate a love of the law and desire to practice or a that its something to avoid it at all costs. Not everyone who studies law actually become practising lawyers. In Australia its split at about 60% will not actually practice, however this doesn't inlcude the number of lawyers employed by the various Governments (Commonwealth, State or Territory).
The best part of law school for me was the involvement in study groups, working on campus and the opportunity to actually participate in various programs designed to provide students the opportunity to practise what we were learning. Not forgetting general student life, the pub and socialising. Finally the very best part of law school was finally making my own dreams become my reality.
Go for it - it you don't try it you'll die wondering.
CM
PS: Not forgetting all those letters you get to put after your name - (BA, LLB, GDLP)
-
210
Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation
by DannyHaszard injehovah's loses comp case
church may be forced to pay millions
by jess wisloski.
-
Curious Mind
Now for an Aussie angle ...
"I'm finding they were not religious volunteers," Goldstein said. "They were engaged, particularly Dr. Brenda Upton, in a number of work-like activities."
The Witnesses vowed to appeal the ruling, saying Upton and the other 5,800 Witnesses who live and work in the church's
Goldstein obviously made the right decision in that Dr Upton was a worker based on her activities. In Australia (US decisions can be used as precedents) I think a similarly constructed argument would likewise be successful. If we make up a hypothetical it may run like this:
What do most Bethelites do? Cleaning and other domestic chores – so lets say that sister X is a cleaner and she has injured herself…Lets say she’s in the Sydney Bethel – this means that the NSW Industrial Relations Act 1996 and NSW Industrial Relations Regulations 1996 apply. Don't forget that in Australia perosnal medical insurance is optional, everyone has access to a Government medical scheme for the treatment of emergancies (full cover), injuries and all medical treatment (subsidised rates, it usually covers about 70% of the cost).
Now the fun begins – Is she covered by the Act? – the answer is perhaps … the tricky bit is the remuneration question. It’s not so much of how much they are paid but what the Org has in place to tell the Bro’s how much, when and how they are getting paid. So we are now going to fall into another argument of proving that a contract is in existence, now is the contract registered as a Federal Instrument? If it’s an Australian Workplace Agreement is must be – but I would seriously doubt the Bethelites are on AWA’s more like a private contract... as you all know the devil is in the details. But without a doubt the contract would govern working times, responsibilities, standards and the alike, as ‘remuneration’ the Bethelites will receive full board and an allowance … I think that most Lawyers could construct a fairly adequate argument that there is a “formal arrangement of services in exchange for ‘remuneration’’”. Just consider all the variations of salary sacrificing for an example, plus all Bethelites who receive over the tax free threshold are subject to the taxation laws of the Commonwealth – which a good lawyer would check whether the WTS pay on their behalf. Plus there’s the very simple statement that all workers are voluntarily participating in such an formal exchange of services in exchange for remuneration – the differing point is that they receive market rates for their labour.
OK – now that Sister X participates in this arrangement she will come within Schedule 1(b) of the Act, persons deemed to be employees.
The workers compensation angle would be easier to explore if she could be deemed to be a worker, it would be easier to start with the above. Yes volunteers are also covered for injury but not to the same extent as employees and it would be finacially advantageous for a non-employee to pursue it through the civil system (possibly through a negligence claim). We also have a different system than the US - if she is not an employee but rather a contractor then there is no worker compensation she can claim (contractors, visitors and may others are not covered by workers compensation).
In an Australian context Sister X would have two options to sue through the Industrial Relations Tribunal or a for damages. It would depend on what she wanted, both avenues (if successful) would provide that the WTS is liable for her medical expenses however through the Civil Court she could also be awarded damages, exemplary, punitive and compensatory damages.
The earlier $79,000 payment could also utilized as an act of admission by the WTS - offering such a payment admitted that they are liable and should provide monetary support for her on-going medical costs, (plus there is the media angle – how would it look that a woman in pain is denied medical access because she does not have the ability to pay for treatment after devoting her life to her religion – wouldn't go down too well). Otherwise, perhaps it was a payment not to sue at which she was required to sign an agreement that she will waive her rights to sue – I don’t know how it works in the US but in Australia you cannot sign away your right to access the judicial system and sue for a wrong.
How far back would the WTS be liable for lawsuits of the injuries?
How far back the WTS is liable depends on how long the allows for Tort cases (check your statutory time limits), usually somewhere between three (vehicle personal injury) and seven years (general tort/civil cases). However there is always the opportunity to seek an out of time motion and have your case heard even through the time limits have passed. This has occurred in Australia mostly in relation to sexual abuse cases (abused when a kid and sue when an adult) and in medical cases (asbestos cases when the damage doesn’t manifest itself immediately and may take decades) and also when a previous law that prohibited you bringing a motion has been judged as a law that is ultra vires (has not been made with the correct statutory authority) and is therefore void.
It was a huge mistake to have even allowed this thing to come to trial in the first place. They should've settled and written a check on the QT, and swept this thing under the rug when they had the chance. Why in the world they couldn't see the far-reaching implications in case they lost is beyond me. A huge mistake.
Settlement requires the agreement of both parties, perhaps Dr Upton though it was time the WTS were taught a lesson.
CM
-
13
Sudden family interest in our reasons why we are no longer JW's ...
by Curious Mind ini'm curious, just recently it seems that our family are intent on 'reasoning' or 'finding out' why we are no longer interested in being a jw.
what seems strange is how we have been approached by relatives here and overseas with such a small time frame - which leads us to believe that there must be some impetous for this suddent 'interest' in us and our choice, which we made over 10 years ago ... is it just us or does anyone out there know something, we suspect that something was raised at the recent district conventions, perhaps 'new light'!
we are tempted to let them know the full reasons, but (ofcourse) we fear that this will lead to an allegaton of apostacy and our df'g... .
-
Curious Mind
Thanks All
Your comments are insightful and confirms my suspicious mind - it could not have come from out of the blue and if I engage they won't leave it till it goes somewhere, and I don't think it will be positive for us. I think I'm going to reply that this is a personal matter and I do not wish to discuss it at this moment. I think that way I'm closing the door on any further discussions and perhaps they will be left thinking that we are just not ready yet ...
Curious enough they did want to start writing to our child ... Now that is a bit of a concern
CM