Candace Conti Asked for $1, 440.00

Euphemism

Do you have a link to the complaint? I'm really curious to read more about the specific cause of action against the WT, and also how they proved that WT policy was involved.

Dagney

Wow, long time no see!

Try this:

Go here: http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/html/index.html
Type in case number HG11558324 in Case Summary.

The menu on the left "Register of Actions" contains the documents.

Euphemism

Thanks, Dagney! Good to still see some old faces. :)

Dagney

It's great to see you Euph. Did you hear about the case on the news?

smiddy

Maybe thats why she got what she did.......,maybe,just maybe , Jehovah has a sense of humour too ?

O.K. maybe I`m dreaming

smiddy

AnnOMaly

Holy crap, it's Euph! Good to see you. How have you been?

I still think there's been a misunderstanding about what the $1440 was for. This amount was only part of a motion to get the defendant elder(s) to answer questions they refused to answer based on clergy penitent privilege. The plaintiff (specifically the legal team) argued that this didn't apply and wanted the court to force answers. If the court agreed with the motion and the defendants STILL refused to respond, then they should be fined $1440. This is something entirely different from the damages being sued for.

I'm going to have to find the documents again ...