Flipper that is always a possibility. In California, the appeals court judges are elected. You can always support those running against those judges.
Court ruling update.....
I still call this a victory for Conti and the JW opposers. She basically won her case and received much more than she originally asked for (which I think was 1440.00, or something like that)
I couldn't believe it either.
The "worldly" lawyer that the WT hired was a pro.... He gave the judges an illustration of a person working at a Coca Cola (?) factory. He asked something like this: 'now, let's say someone comes to work for CC and in the past had been convicted as a shoplifter, is CC going to be obligated, by this decision you are making to "inform everyone working at this plant that 'there is a shoplifter here'. 'It would cost so much money, and if it was a rule, then people would sue them for 'not declaring the shoplifter'..... in that type of style.
He used the "umbrella" idea to affect the judges ruling that all corporations in CA would be effected.
So the WT argued more in the style that IT was a "corporation" and NOT as a "god's channel of communication."
They did not come across as "abhorring child abuse".
cha ching - "...They did not come across as 'abhorring child abuse'."
Reminds me of another recent court case where the Org's argument essentially boiled down to "We should be allowed to 'employ' sex offenders all we want"...
I remember reading that and thinking, "Seriously? Are you, like, trying to provoke secular society or something?"
(As it happens, I think that they kind of are to a degree, but that's a subject for another conversation.)
Vidiot... which court case?
Can't remember. Google might turn it up.
dropoffyourkeyylee - "I still call this a victory..."
Sort of, I guess.
It's not like the Org has come away looking like the Good Guys.
Still, IMO, it begs the question, "WTF is wrong with you, California?"