Why can't the Watchtower Society do the Christian thing and just pay the woman already?
Oh, that's right. There aren't Christians running the tower
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall 98 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Band on the Run
Amen. Can you picture Jesus fighting anyone who was sexually abused as a young child under his apostles' watch? I cannot under any theory of Jesus of Nazareth.
-
144001
Given the legal arguments that were made, I find it odd that the court is taking this under submission. The law is clearly on Conti's side on this issue, so it appears to me that the court is trying to find a legal basis upon which to grant the WTBTS' motion.
As a side note, I estimate the WTBTS' legal bill from the Jackson Lewis law firm on the Conti case to be in the neighborhood of $1 million and growing.
-
Scott77
Given the legal arguments that were made, I find it odd that the court is taking this under submission. The law is clearly on Conti's side on this issue, so it appears to me that the court is trying to find a legal basis upon which to grant the WTBTS' motion.
144001 I think, that was a good point worth poundering. The Count's legal arguments notwithstanding, if the court find a legal basis to grant the Watchtower wish, cannot we logically conclude that Conti's lawyers will use it as a legal basis likewise to make an appeal for the same reason? I would not be suprised.
Scott77
-
Scott77
kurtbethel wonders 'Why can't the Watchtower Society do the Christian thing and just pay the woman already? Oh, that's right. There aren't Christians running the tower' while Band on the Run asks'Can you picture Jesus fighting anyone who was sexually abused as a young child under his apostles' watch?'
The answer evidently is no,the Watchtower is not a christian organisation per se. It exists for a reason other than what its states in public. Scott77
-
Vidiot
144001 - "Given the legal arguments that were made, I find it odd that the court is taking this under submission. The law is clearly on Conti's side on this issue, so it appears to me that the court is trying to find a legal basis upon which to grant the WTBTS' motion."
Naw, I just think the good guys are just making sure all their I's are dotted and T's are crossed.
Personally, I also think they're giving the WTS and their lawyers every chance to make themselves look bad or good; but they're taking the bad bait, 'cause the WTS can't possibly believe they'll lose.
I could be wrong.
-
CaptainSchmideo
It's taking so long, because NOTHING moves fast in the legal system. NOTHING!
-
Band on the Run
Member Vidiot states "I could be wrong." It sums up the situation in a pithy way. We have the sense to realize that we can be wrong. The WT believes it is impossible to be wrong on anything at anytime. A world of difference exists between "I could be wrong" and "I am perfect (in the modern sense of perfect as opposed to older usage of complete).
CA law specialists: If the court rules in favor of the JW motion, what options does Conti have? Does she appeal rights on this issue?
I am no expert on CA law. The statute is so specific about what is allowed. Doesn't the specifity of the what may be used negate the general and vague language of the clause that an officer may...... I thought this was a slam dunk for Conti.
-
-
144001
Band: She would not have appeal rights, but writ relief is likely available to her (confirming this would require some research). But assuming writ relief is available, I doubt Simons would pursue it, as less than 10% of writs are granted, and they are very, very work intensive and costly.
Edited to add:
The law is clear cut. The rules of statutory construction do not support the construction argued by the WTBTS. The forms of security allowed by the statute are all, extremely liquid assets. No real or personal property is mentioned. The reasons are obvious. Values of real and personal property can fluctuate, and it is not necessarily easy to convert such property into liquid assets. If the winning party's rights to collect the judgment are going to be put on hold, it's only fair to ensure that they will be able to collect when the hold is released.
One more option would be a motion for reconsideration of the decision on this motion, but that would be ruled upon by the same judge (i.e., the trial judge deciding the present motion).