Odd that Travelers would supply a bond this large in a case like this.
Conti: WTS Motion re Appeal Bond - WTS Motion 10/26, Conti's Opposition 11/02, WTS Reply 11/06
by DNCall 57 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Scott77
"...I no longer think 144,001 is an attorney. If s/he were an attorney, he would have understood my post on Cedar’s other thread and would not have emotionally responded that I was trying to “goad” her/him into declaring if she/he is a lawyer. If one posts that ‘X is true,’ one needs to cite to authority. Attorneys never cite to themselves, and if one ever did cite to him or herself, they would have no problem saying that they know ‘X is true’ based on their career, which is all I asked of 144,001. However, attorneys are trained to cite to a legal authority. 144,001 does not do that. S/he merely posts conclusory statements (X is true), and then challenges others to ‘prove him wrong.’.." Justitia Themis Scott77
-
144001
<<<< I suspect 144,001 is a paralegal or legal assistant that has some knowledge about California. Nevertheless, paralegals’ information should not be automatically discounted because they do tend to understand the law in which they work.>>>>
Justicia Themis,
Being a law student does not give you a license to violate forum rules. You have hijacked this thread with ignorant comments meant to incite a confrontation about a subject that has nothing to do with this thread. As for your legal knowledge, you've already demonstrated your deficiencies:
" Even so, 75% of Conti's punitive damages will be paid to a state fund and she will get only 25%. -- Justicia Themis" http://jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/233930/2/Order-Conditionally-Granting-Motion-For-New-Trial-As-To-Punitive-Damages-Filed-in-Candace-Conti-Case
As I pointed out to you (and you conceded) in the other thread, this is NOT the law in California. Conti will keep all of the punitive damages she collects, minus her attorneys fees and costs.
You are no expert on California law . . .
<<<Nevertheless, paralegals’ information should not be automatically discounted because they do tend to understand the law in which they work.>>>
The "information" provided by law students like Justicia Themis should be "automatically discounted" because they are not lawyers and actually have less knowledge than paralegals or even legal secretaries, a point Justicia Themis illustrated with her false statement of California law, above.
-
Scott77
Justitia Themis "...If one posts that ‘X is true,’ one needs to cite to authority...never cite to themselves, and if one ever did cite to him or herself, they would have no problem saying that they know ‘X is true’ based on their career, which is all I asked of 144,001. ..attorneys are trained to cite to a legal authority. 144,001 does not do that..." 144001 "...Conti will keep all of the punitive damages she collects, minus her attorneys fees and costs..." Mr. John, I think Mrs Justia the Roman goddess of Justice, is interested to know your legal citation to back up all what you claim to be legally factual. You can only satistify this interest by citing relevant state and federal laws that apply to ALL your legal statements including the one quoted above.
Scott77
-
144001
Scott,
You've been trying to hijack this thread, since its inception, with your boorish efforts to incite arguments. Disharmony and acrimony warm your heart, and when ugly arguments recently escalated to the point where forum members were deleted, you expressed the sick pleasure you derived from the unfortunate outcome:
<<<< I am very glad that KS and others have been deleted. This is a serious warning to you all strolls [sic] that your days on JWN will be short. -- Scott77 >>>> http://jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/240181/16/Patterson-on-the-line-Watchtower-claims-that-paying-cash-bond-would-cause-e2809cimmediate-irreparable-harm-and-hardshipe2809d
You should heed your own warning, Scott. Your purpose on this thread, from your very first post, has been to hijack it and incite useless arguments, as you have done on other threads.
-
wha happened?
and yet the question is never answered.......
-
AnnOMaly
Summary of the Plaintiff's opposition to the WTS's motion to substitute Patterson or reduce the bond to cover compensatory damages only.
11/01/12 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition Filed
There is no statutory authority to replace the cash bond with "out-of-state real property."
"Although the concern of the Church Defendants for Ms. Conti is heartwarming, if somewhat belated, their request is specifically prohibited by statute." [The sarcasm isn't lost here LOL.]
The Plaintiff makes the point that only six specific forms of financial security are allowed as substitutes (procedure codes cited). Neither out-of-state real property nor any form of non-liquid assets are included among them.
The Defendants are trying to use the stated exceptions to the code as leverage to allow their preferred substitution. However, the statute makes no allowance of this kind and thus the Court has no discretionary powers to grant it.
Moreover, the whole point of a cash bond (and the permitted six alternatives) is so the judgment can readily be collected if the Plaintiff prevails on appeal. Having the value of the judgment tied up in real property on the other side of the country, as well as the issue of fluctuating market values, etc., would "defeat the statutory purpose of the bond or undertaking."
The Court has no authority to reduce the amount of the bond either (procedure codes cited). The judgment is for $11.4 million (and is accruing $100k interest per month), so a reduced bond of compensatory damages only - $4.2 million - falls way short of the judgment, thereby contradicting the WTS's "mathematically incorrect" claim that it 'more than adequately securitizes the plaintiff's interests in the Amended Judgment.'
"The Church Defendants' Motion unfairly requests the Court to far exceed its authority solely to financially benefit the losing parties in a lawsuit." [But we knew that already, didn't we?]
"CONCLUSION Neither the request to the sustitute out-of-state real property for a surety bond, nor the request to reduce the bond beyond the statutory mandated minimum, is supported by any law or authority. Both requests must be denied, and no evidentiary hearing [the WTS was wanting to give a brief oral presentation on how viable Patterson is as a substitute] is warranted."
-
144001
Conti's opposition papers look pretty solid. Mr. Simons' arguments are sound, and unless the WTBTS can find some case authority to support its position in the reply papers due to be served and filed on 11/6, the WTBTS motion will be denied.
I have access to a very comprehensive legal library for California. After reading the WTBTS moving papers, and the Conti opposition, I spent a brief amount of time researching to attempt to find case authority that the WTBTS could present in reply to Conti's opposition. I found none whatsoever. The WTBTS lawyers will spend far more time on this issue than I did, so it's possible they will find something I overlooked, but based on what I saw in my limited review, I doubt that they will be able to find anything to effectively rebut Conti's opposition.
The motion will most likely be denied.
-
Band on the Run
Justitia,
You have ridiculed me. Sometimes you happen to be correct on a very minor detail. You write as though you were a lawyer with vast years of experience rather than a good law student. Peoplel do not need your approval to post here. This is a forum devoted to Jehovah's Witnesses dissidents, not a legal site.
Since credentials are not posted, anyone's opinion is as valid as your own. My credentials were demanded. The problem is that I do know my own credentials. Rather than attack content or ideas, people tend to attack people. People who have no information about another forum member attack the person on personal grounds.
I find your posts informative on a technical subject. You rarely state what you believe or the larger picture. No one here has the duty to research and post the findings to the degree you do. Frankly, I am more interested in what people think than technicalities.
The tension here so much mirrors my situation with you that I feel as though I am in excellent company.
For example, Cedars is free to post what he believes to be true. Anyone who believes whatever anyone posts here rather than seeing their own lawyer is imprudent. JWN is not a legal. It is not a law student site. People are entitled to beliefs, even if they have not attended law school and passed the CA bar.
-
RubaDub
You rarely state what you believe or the larger picture. No one here has the duty to research and post the findings to the degree you do. Frankly, I am more interested in what people think than technicalities.
Bank on the Run ...
I guess we disagree on what we wish to hear regarding the case. Not to be disrespectful to anyone, but what a "window-washer, janitor or grocery clerk" thinks about the case may be mildly entertaining but of little value in our understanding of the current case.
I have a Science degree but that has only taught me that there is so much that "I know that I don't know" and one of those disciplines is law (I don't consider my two semesters of Business Law as even scratching the surface in civil law).
Personally, I am more interested in the facts than the fluff. In fact, that's what the study of law so focuses on, as you mention, "technicalities."
Rub a Dub