Thank you BOTR for your real world insights.
And yes, I know you're not giving "legal advice".
om
Watchtower's Billion Dollars of Property Cannot Be Sold until Outcome of Conti Appeal
by Dogpatch 171 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
flipper
BTTT, Peace out, Mr. Flipper
-
AnnOMaly
Great post and thank you. Please, provide full detail like address of the place of hearing, name of the court, etc.
I just got the info from the Alameda court site. Dept 22 is the same one for the whole of the Conti case. You'll be able to monitor it yourself if you go to http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/html/casesumbody.html and enter HG11558324.
-
Doubting Bro
BOTR - Thanks for your insight. In your opinion, do you think the WTS needs to appeal this all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary? I can't see them giving up on this because if it ends up in a loss, the precedent will be set and their ability to defend other suits will be compromised, correct?
Does anyone know if they've posted their appeal bond yet?
-
The Oracle
This is an exciting development.
I guess Jehovah is sleeping at the wheel.
It's impossible to spin this in a positive light.
Even the master spin doctors down at WT headquarters are going to strike out with this one.
Now is the time to welcome current JWs back in to the real world with open arms and caring hearts.
Let the exodus begin (...........er I mean continue)
The Oracle
-
wannabefree
Information on the Civil appeal process in California ...
-
Band on the Run
I expect both parties to appeal to the Supreme Court. The First Amendment issues are significant. Various organizations, including almost every religion in existence, will want to file amicus briefs. I can envision the WT meeting with other churches to plan strategy. It is not a slam dink win for everyone. Regardless of the final legal outcome, though, a loss at the Supreme Court for Conti would still be a win in terms of public relations. The more normal people hear about the "two witness rule," how the Witnesses who knock at their door are not Jehovah's Witnesses, and the large cover ups, the more people will be less inclined to swallow the WT party line. It must upset active Witnesses, too. The newspapers, TV, and websites will certainly cover the case. The WT has been neither godly or moral.
Conti may not go home with millions but win or lose, the WT has lost on the larger playing field.
-
mind blown
Though it's common to appeal, appealing to the SC may open up a can of worms for the WTS. I gather it will depend on how much they have to hide or not.
That Zimmerman character (security guard) was sheilding undisclosed money, once the judge found out he denied his bail, then later raised it to a million. The judge was pretty pissed off.
-
-
mind blown
Band said..."As I explained earlier, an appeals court rarely examines the factual determination of the jury or judge."
A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were "clearly erroneous."
The court of appeals decision usually will be the last word in a case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
Appeals are decided by panels of three judges working together. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in writing, in a document called a "brief." In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that its decision should be reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the "appellee," tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any error made by the trial court was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.
Although some cases are decided on the basis of written briefs alone, many cases are selected for an "oral argument" before the court. Oral argument in the court of appeals is a structured discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges focusing on the legal principles in dispute. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present arguments to the court.
The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.
A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal. When the Supreme Court hears a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court may hear oral argument.