California Supreme Court Case - S226656
Case law is important, and this may just be an avenue to get more favorable rulings. With each favorable ruling they could use in defense for pending litigation.
"Village Idiot-they don't care about the money. Its not THEIR personal wallet and they have lots more where that came from. Its not even that much money.They are all about "the principle of the thing". Or the lack of principles in their case."
I believe Candace Conti asked for 25 million in damages. The accumulation of multiple lawsuits could easily be a 100 million and I believe the society is worth several 100 million so that would be a good chunk of their 'hard earned' money.
Im somewhat supprised at the 'how dare they appeal' sentiment. What else do you expect the org or any person or institution to do in the face of a damaging ruling that could potentially lead to more damaging verdicts...? Of course they are going to appeal and appeal every aspect on every single ground they can manufacture. Its what any corporation would do. Ot shpuld be absolutely no suprise amd frandly dosent ring as hypocritical to me, as much as i would like to see it that way. Its not personal. It's business. I do agree with the idea that could potentially backfrire and i hope to thor it does ;)
Fisherman, in response to my example of a school's duty to protect a child, you said...
It is not the same, the school has a custody relationship with the child, and so does a day care. You leave the child with them. They are legally liable. They have a legal duty to protect the child. Didn't you read the Court transcripts posted on this Forum for this case?
Whereas, in a subsequent post, you admitted to the 'special custodial relationship' between the church and child...
Wrong! The Appellate Court ruled that the church formed a "special custody relationship" with the child,and that was one basis for the award of damages to Plaintiffs.
Fisherman. First, you assert that the church had NO custodial liability. Then you admit that the church formed a 'special custody relationship' with the child. Since you are so well versed in legalese, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us on the DIFFERENCE between these relationships.
Also, you had previously stated that the elders in Conti's case had merely 'screwed up,' because they were 'imperfect.' Since you now seem to agree that there WAS, at least, a 'special custodial relationship' between the church and child. Would you not also agree that the elder's misstep in this case went well beyond a simple 'screwing up?' In almost any similar position of responsibility, they would be considered 'grossly negligent' and 'derelict in their duties.' A small business would likely fire a person so incompetent, and the military would court martial. I guess the standards of these JW elders fall well below that of most 'WORLDLY' people such as myself. Sad.
believe Candace Conti asked for 25 million in damages. The accumulation of multiple lawsuits could easily be a 100 million and I believe the society is worth several 100 million so that would be a good chunk of their 'hard earned' money.
Asked for, yes. But didn't receive. Hopefully, other lawsuits in the pipeline will hit the WT in their pocketbook.
I believe the society is worth several 100 million
Try tens of billions.
I am somewhat surprised at the astonishment on this thread.
A corporation stolen by a lawyer, who turned it into his personal, tax-free, multiple-servant, Cadillac-chauffered, Canadian alcohol supplied during prohibition, San Diego paradise lifestyle.
We easily see through the free labour, real estate flipping facade.
WTS has volunteer lawyers, for crying out loud.
Of course, they always litigate, and always appeal any loss.
(Also watch "Going Clear" and see how the IRS caved to Scientology's strategy.)
Good webpage here: http://jwemployees.bravehost.com/
Scroll to: LITIGATION IS IN THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BLOODSTREAM.
I believe Candace Conti asked for 25 million in damages
VI, If you have been following news reports in the USA about people wrongfully incarcerated for many decades and the Prosecuting Agency "framing" defendants, after suing the state they barely got a couple of million. Innocent people rotting in jail for 20, 30, 40, years. And then they passed a new law limiting the amount of money that a person could sue the state for. (they sued for 25 million too.) Do you really think that after a judicial review of this case, Plaintiffs would get so much money? Children get maimed and killed and do you think the parents get so much money?
Try tens of billions.
And they have the greatest legal team on the face of this planet. They fight in all of the highest Courts on Earth