i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .
opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.
the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.
As I said I'm not an expert, but for what I saw in the opinion they revert on punitive damages because these were awarded by the wrong reasons. However, the court that initially awarded them has to rule on new punitive damages but for the reasons detailed in the appeal court's opinion. Is my understanding correct?
Also, I think the initial amount must be higher due to interest. Do you know how much is that? Intrests for 2.8M x 2.5 years
i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .
opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.
the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.
Fink that is my understanding too, but I think that is secondary to the issue (how much money they will have to pay) I think that the main issue has been settled and that is important.
i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .
opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.
the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.
I tried to get a copy of the whole opinion but it is not available yet http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions.htm
i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .
opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.
the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.
I'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this:
04/13/2015
Opinion filed.
(Signed Published) The judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed. The judgment against Watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on punitive damages. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
i've tried to publish this several times but it doesn't work.
you can check the ruling here: .
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/tayo-etc-decision-09apr15.pdf.
I've tried to publish this several times but it doesn't work. You can check the ruling here:
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Tayo-etc-decision-09Apr15.pdf
from the ruling: .
"we note that the congregation and the charity are one and the same entity in this case, so that whilst the congregation understandably wishes to follow its religious practices, its status as a registered charity brings with it, in exchange for public recognition and tax reliefs, a requirement to maintain certain standards of behaviour.
it also brings with it the risk that, if there are concerns about its activities, these might be inquired into by the respondent.
From the ruling:
"We note that the Congregation and the Charity are one and the same entity in this case, so that whilst the Congregation understandably wishes to follow its religious practices, its status as a registered charity brings with it, in exchange for public recognition and tax reliefs, a requirement to maintain certain standards of behaviour. It also brings with it the risk that, if there are concerns about its activities, these might be inquired into by the Respondent. We consider that there were significant grounds for concern about the Charity on the basis of the information held by the Respondent"
“we consider that there are significant on-going grounds for concern about the Charity’s conduct of safeguarding matters. We take into account (i) the Charity’s failure to be entirely frank with the Respondent about the questioning of victims in the disfellowshipping of Mr Rose at the relevant time; (ii) the delay in volunteering the information that third parties had been involved in the disfellowshipping of Mr Rose; and (iii) the Charity’s insistence in these proceedings that there was no legitimate cause for concern by the Respondent about the conduct of those proceedings because of the appointment of third parties to conduct them. The Charity did not appear from the evidence before us to accept that best practice in safeguarding for charities relates not only to the protection of children but also of vulnerable adults, nor did it appear to have considered whether the Charity might have a safeguarding role in respect of adults who had been abused as children in the Congregation. 72. The Charity also did not seem to us to have considered whether Mr Rose might yet present a risk to children currently in the Congregation.”
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Tayo-etc-decision-09Apr15.pdf
i think this case it is not in very good shape for plaintiff, it is a person currently in prison suing wt.
does anyone have more information?.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/uscourts-caed-1_14-cv-01740/uscourts-caed-1_14-cv-01740-0/content-detail.html.
I think this case it is not in very good shape for plaintiff, it is a person currently in prison suing WT. Does anyone have more information?
the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.
here is the ruling:.
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.
The WT lost its appeals regarding the Charity Commission inquiry. Here is the ruling:
http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/Watch-Tower-ruling-03Mar15.pdf
There is an associated case to this which hearing is due tomorrow (10th march) at Fleetbank House , 2-6 Salisbury Square, London. I think it starts at 10 a.m.
The case name is Tayo, Bailey, Halls, Jones, Rowarth & Flanagan (Trustees of Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses) v Charity Commission for England & Wales
you must see the musical video at the end of this month program (aprox.
at 1:04:30).... i don't like to use "must" but this is wow... if you think they couldn't get any lower... just be prepared...
john ekrann, a helper to the gb, revealed the true reason for the change was protecting jws from apostates and other "anointed" christians.. see: http://tv.jw.org/#video/vodprogramsevents/pub-jwbmw_e_201501_2_video (around 4:55ms).
.
John Ekrann, a helper to the GB, revealed the true reason for the change was protecting JWs from apostates and other "anointed" Christians.
See: http://tv.jw.org/#video/VODProgramsEvents/pub-jwbmw_E_201501_2_VIDEO (around 4:55ms)
