Conti: WTS Motion re Appeal Bond - WTS Motion 10/26, Conti's Opposition 11/02, WTS Reply 11/06 (page 3)

Scott77

	Scott77 - somebody legally trained who could comment on this would be a distinct advantage but, failing that, you just need reading comprehension skills to get a rough idea of what's going on.
	AnnOMaly

Hi AnnOMaly, yep I agree with that perspective. Just to be clear, my advise to Mr. Cedar's invitation was limited to those strolls who repeatedly come up and start hijacking other's thread that so and so was omitted out and that so and so is factually inaccurate. Specifically, the exclusion of certain strolls whose only goal is to ruin a beautful thread such as this one. Otherwise, thanks for your insightful summary.

Scott77

AnnOMaly

(To Cedars). Got it. I don't understand the problem. The WTS were complaining that their motion about the bond would not be heard until January. This would be too late to do anything. The premium is due on Nov. 15 and, according to the latest document, the premium cannot be refunded past Dec. 18. They were asking to jump the queue and be heard on this matter before they had to pay.

Scott77 - Ah I see. I doubt whether there'll be any 'bolshiness' so soon. It usually takes a little while to build up again ;-)

cedars

AnnOMaly, but the sentence I've drawn your attention to doesn't mention the premium - it merely mentions "bond payments", indicating (in my mind) that instalments of the bond had yet to be paid as of October 18th when the Ex Parte was filed. It was this sentence that led me to the conclusion that the bond hadn't been paid, and that the noise over the premium was just strategizing to try and get the bond amount reduced.

To me, whether the bond money has actually left the Society's account and gone to wherever it needs to go is crucial in determining the real purpose behind the Watchtower's motion - strategizing aside.

Does that make sense?

Cedars

cedars

Scott77 - thanks, I appreciate your efforts to keep trolls off my back, but I honestly don't think that is the case here!

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of things, and two or three heads are better than one!

Cedars

AnnOMaly

I see what you mean now. ...

Gonna check the papers again ...

cedars

Thanks AnnOMaly, it's late here but I look forward to reading more of your thoughts tomorrow.

I wish these things didn't have to be so damned complex and convoluted!

Cedars

AnnOMaly

Thinking logically, the Court wouldn't have vacated the order about transferring assets unless the damages money was safe, untouchable. The term I saw was, 'the bond/undertaking is hereby posted ... in the amount of [$17.2 million]' This means the payment has been recorded. The bond was obtained through Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. The bond has a reference number.

Investopedia explains 'Appeal Bond'

A losing defendant needs this to secure his right to appeal and stay the judgment. It is required by both federal and state court. The process of appealing involves posting a full judgment in addition to posting interest. An appeal bond should be discussed early in a case, since the cost of this bond can be high and defendants are required to post this bond a few weeks after the judgment.

The context of the ex-parte of Oct. 18 is substituting property for the whole cash bond caboodle, thus avoiding paying the premium(s) altogether, or else considerably reducing the cash bond which consequently would reduce the premium(s). If they hadn't already put aside the cash in a bond, Patterson would be substituting for what? Nothing. They would just be offering property as security from the get-go. The confusing wording "bond payments" has to refer to the premiums.

The $17.2 million is already bonded, tied up, as of Sept. 18. The (insurance) premium on it is due Nov. 15.

And from the 10/26 Motion, 19744415, p. 2: "the Church Defendants duly procured and filed an appellate bond with this Court with the face value of $17,277,299.37 ... that bond represents 1.5 times the Court's final judgment of $11,519,199 awarded against the Church Defendants. ... The annual premium on that appellate bond is, not surprisingly inordinately expensive. ... $86,386 per annum, with that full amount becoming vested and non-refundable by the bonding surety after December 18, 2012."

Hence the motion to substitute property or reduce the cash value of the bond.

144001

<<< Mr. cedars ,

I thought that was a good invitation. However, I think, it would be even more interesting to limit to only those who are trained Attorneys or Lawyers. Specifically, exclude certain individuals whose only goal is to ruin a beautful thread such as this one. -- Scott77>>>

Scott,

Stop trying to hijack this thread with your petty stupidity. Take your efforts to instigate conflict with you back to the kingdom hall where you belong.

cedars

Hi AnnOMaly - thanks for that. I understand that the bond was "posted" and is therefore viewed as "paid", and that Travelers are normally involved in this regard, but I have reason to believe that, as of this moment, no money has actually left the Watchtower's account. I believe this whole thing has very little to do with the premium itself, and that the premium is just being used as part of an elaborate strategy to get the bond amount reduced (or put up as property) - which is what will cost them the most money as the appeal proceedings drag on. My understanding is that it will be cheaper for them to put up the property as collateral directly with the court rather than to do this with a third-party insurance company.

That's my understanding anyway. I would be great if we could get some kind of definitive explanation to cut through the legalese and explain everything.

Cedars

AnnOMaly

You have 'reason to believe' the $17.2 million is still in the WTS's possession?

I can only go by what is said in the court documents. If your 'reason to believe' otherwise is on solid foundation, then,

- either I've missed something important in the wording (I don't think the single phrase "bond payments" is enough to warrant such a conclusion given the context - is there something more that gives you 'reason'?),

- or there is something about standard appellate procedure I am unaware of (where bonds can be promised but not paid and this is enough to satisfy the judge so as to 'secure the right to appeal,' 'stay the judgment' and vacate the order preventing transfer of WTNY assets),

- or you have some insider information that is leading you believe otherwise (in which case, you wouldn't need a definitive explanation to cut through the legalese, you'd just know one way or the other).

Can you elaborate?

Conti: WTS Motion re Appeal Bond - WTS Motion 10/26, Conti's Opposition 11/02, WTS Reply 11/06

Investopedia explains 'Appeal Bond'

Share this