So, um, Oroborus...how many Work Comp cases have you tried under NYC law that involved a claim of exemption on the part of the defendant based on religious order status of the injured party?
Just curious. I'd just like to know whether you are talking out of your ass again. It seems your "perspective" on legal issues involving the Watchtower Society comes down on the side of the Watchtower Society's desired perspective (legal unassailability) about ... let's see ... 100% of the time. Not only that, you go further and demean those who differ with you.
Well, guess what Eduardo? You don't know what the hell you are talking about this time. Your own words prove it.
Anyway, 1) the Judge did not "dismiss the Society's determination that these were religious volunteers" since there is nothing in the news article that said that the Society made such a determination and there wouldn't be since 1) the Society doesn't determine the status of the workers in WC situation and 2) such a determination is meaningless as all that is relevant is whether work was being performed at the time of the injury.
While it is true that the article doesn't mention it, does that fact mean that the Judge did not dismiss the Society's determination that these were religious volunteers, or, more correctly from a technical perspective (which you no doubt prefer) that the judge did not dismiss a "plea" that the injured party was a "member of a religious order injured in the act of fulfilling duties appertaining thereto"?
No. It does not. However, you proceed from this fabricated assumption of what the Judge did not do to a purely conjecture assumption about why he did not do what is claimed.
Let's take your "since" clauses one at a time, looking for basis critically. Again, it is technically true that the Society doesn't finally determine the status of the worker at the time of the injury, however the Society did plead THEIR determination, just as the claimant pleaded THEIR contrary determination. The Judge heard both. It is certain what the Society pled, because that is the only grounds under which they would even press the issue, much less appeal it—agreed? It is likewise certain what the claimant pled, for the same reason.
Therefore, despite the article omitting the salient detail, it is not only POSSIBLE to correctly infer the pleadings of both the claimant and defendant, it is patently obvious what their claims were. The fact that the Judge decided in favor of the claimant REQUIRED that he DISMISS the plea of the defendant, the nature of which plea is an obvious consequence of the fact that they launched a defense AT ALL and plan to appeal the decision.
As I knew from a cursory reading, your "since" clauses are logically flawed and don't hold up to the barest scrutiny.
Once again, you demean someone and pick someone's post apart because they don't post in the detail you would prefer. You are talking out of your ass if all you have to back your rejection of these posts is the article and your complete lack of experience with New York City WC Judges and Boards. Now, a couple of questions:
(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.
(2) Is the decision reached a decision made lightly by a Judge when a religious group is involved? And why do you say so?
Your joke "Old Sole" wasn't terribly clever the first time. You weaken yourself in the eyes of many by bottom-feeding like that. Maybe once your ethics match your "Esquire" you will have earned respect.
See, Eduardo, I'm a nobody. As far as I know, the only expectations others have from me are those equivalent to every other poster here. You would deign to put down a nobody with a play on their screen name? I could do the same (e.g. "Or-oh-bore-us") but I don't. I could put down the depth of respect you utterly fail to bring to your profession with "My Cousin Vinny" references (although that might be giving you too much credit), but I don't.
That would be ad hominem attack, the only thing I have done along those lines is link to your Web page (which, in my opinion, did all the demeaning needed on its own). You advertise your Web page on your profile, so apparently you don't mind. In which case, it wasn't ad hominem or any other kind of attack, on you or your character. It wasn't a slight, you publicly thanked me for linking to it and for drawing attention to your page that discussed "Ouroborus."
But you resort to direct attack of the person in every post where you offer (unsolicited) legal analysis of a specific case. Why do you find that necessary? To weaken the perception of others regarding the strength of the poster's counter argument by weakening the perception of the poster as a person.
Why would you do that, if your argument stands on its own merit? You wouldn't. Therefore, you reveal your weak argument by your need to step on someone else to elevate it. Poor debate and terribly poor form. Derision only plays well to a certain sort of audience. Maybe you can step it up a bit in the future, eh? You seem to have a fine mind, but I don't think you want this organization to FALL. You want it to CHANGE. Your goal is not my goal, and I will not be joining you on your fantasical romp of propping up their every legal ploy.
They are dying, as an organization. They are killing themselves. I want to help the process. There are no "good old days" to speak of about this organization, its days have always been spent in expectation of good days that never came. You have halcyon memories of yore that I don't share. There are too many who do not share your memories. There are too many who see, in this organization, the pink foaming mouth, the crazed eyes evidencing a brain craving water, the head shaking side to side with bits of the previous kill flinging with each shake, the maniacal jumping, the search for a next victim.
We know this organization is rabid and must be put down. We know it can't be cured, once it gets to this point. We know we can only protect those we love by doing what needs to be done. You are trying to cure it. Our aims will never be yours. You can ridicule our efforts all you like, we know what needs to be done.
Now, if you're done standing off to the side jeering us, we have work to do.