Any updates on the org's $4000 per day fine?

by The Searcher 67 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Life is to short 2

  dubstepped I point well taken, I know I get worked up over Richard and it is very true that what he is saying right now is true. I totally understand that, but the samething can be said about JW's. They have a lot of great point's, some thing's they say are spot on, that's how they get new one's to join.

  It's just with Richard and this subject of child molesters in the JW'S he is trying his best to deflect, side rail, train wreck, throw off track, destory, make people lose any hope, anything he can do to make it seen impossible, or in his word's it's an uphill battle, to ever bring any change to have any hope that children in the JW religion might ever be safe.

  The point he cannot stop is the newspaper and tv ad's, just if that is all that comes of this, that in and of it's self is HUGE. The elder's who have stood by and just winked at pedophiles holding and taking care of children in there mists will be forever looking over their shoulders wondering if someday the law's will not be on the side of the JW's attorneys and when their time might come. At least RO can't stop that.

  LITS
• 

  OrphanCrow

  RO: And those are legitimate questions, at least the court thinks so...

  I read the court documents you linked to on another thread, Richard.

  According to the docket, the appeal can still be denied. It is not set in stone as you present it.The court actually doesn't think they are legitimate questions - that will only be determined when the appeal proceeds. The court has only agreed to hear an appeal but it was not based on whether the concerns were legitimate (that will be determined when and if the appeal proceeds). The issue that has held it up is whether or not the sanctions can even be appealed. The court has reluctantly agreed to let an appeal proceed but that can still be changed

  On August 3, 2016, we sent a letter to counsel asking why this case should not be dismissed as from a nonappealable order as it was unclear from the terms of the sanctions order whether the amount of sanctions exceeded the $5, 000 threshold allowing for a direct appeal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(12). Appellant's counsel responded, establishing that sanctions pursuant to the order had accrued in the amount of $48, 000 by the time of the filing of the notice of appeal, therefore exceeding the $5, 000 threshold. The appeal may proceed. The appealability of the order may be subject to further consideration during the pendency of the appeal.

  Reading the history of the Watchtower's attempts to get an appeal even heard (a sanction under $5000 cannot be appealed), it becomes apparent that the Watchtower could be treading on thin ice.

  The words that come to mind are "frivolous appeal". Jus' sayin'

  
  
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  I never said that there is going one way or the other. But until the appeals court rules the proceedings are stayed, so the sanctions are stayed as well. The appellate court can reinstate the sanctions but it is up to the appeals court. It very well maybe a frivolous appeal but they are appealing as the law allows. The appeals court is not a selective court, if there is an appeal as defined by the code of civil procedure, the appeals court must hear it.

  Again it maybe frivolous but the court of appeals for the 4th district has ruled that a non named third party who doesn't have control over the named party or is not under the authority of the named party cannot be compelled to give deposition or be compelled to testify. The Mississippi or Louisiana appellate court also recently decided that Watchtower has no control over CCJW and cannot compel either to testify in a civil proceeding.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  The question maybe, and the appeals court brought this up, is does the code require a sanction of 4000 and therefore under the 5000 threshold. Or does the code allow for a cumlitave total that is over 5000. The court made that response when Watchtower first appealed and they allowed Watchtower to respond and the accepted the response. The case has been docketed and Watchtower initial briefs are due in February.
• 

  Gorbatchov

  Do I read it well? Watchtower has no control over CCJW?

  And Gerrit Losch has no control over Watchtower? And Watchtower not over Gerrit?

  What a dirty politics. That must be exposed. Has to stop. Right now.

  (Sorry for the Trump style language...)

  G.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  That is what the 4th discrict of the California appeals court has ruled. That is why, in the Lopez case the terminating sactions were reversed and was remanded back to the trial court with instructions. The court ruled that loach is not a manager, member of the board or have any legal authority over Watchtower and Watchtower has no authority over him.
• 

  joe134cd

  Richard - I have stated this in the past (and I'm probably going to get shot for saying this). I have sometimes wondered if the child abuse issue is been used as a weapon to get back at Wt for all the hurt it has caused them as exjw. When presented with facts or a different spin on the facts they are blinded by this hatred and are unwilling to accept them. This is coming from a rabid apostate who would like nothing more to see the collapse of WT, and those victims been compensated.

  Gorbatchov - It seems like no one is in charge of wt - not even Jehovah himself. As they are now no longer saying they are inspired. WTF.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  I am sure some do do that because they want to cash in on the hysteria or because they want to get back at someone or Watchtower. But is that a lot of people, I really doubt it.
• 

  Landy

  Richard - I have stated this in the past (and I'm probably going to get shot for saying this). I have sometimes wondered if the child abuse issue is been used as a weapon to get back at Wt for all the hurt it has caused them as exjw.

  You will get shot but anybody who can string two thoughts together will see you are right. The way RO has been treated on this thread for simply presenting useful info is pretty shocking and shows that one or two of you haven't quite thrown off the JW judgemental mindset as much as you think you have.
  
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  RO: I never said that there is going one way or the other.

  No, you didn't.

  But you did say "And those are legitimate questions, at least the court thinks so..."

  That is a misrepresentation. The court has not stated that it thinks "those are legitimate questions".