According to the most recent Case Management Order, the Court's decision is due on or before August 25 (Saturday). Look for something the beginning of next week.
DNCall
JoinedPosts by DNCall
-
41
Candace Conti's Sur-Reply is Very Effective
by DNCall inat oral argument on august 13th, the court requested additional briefing from candace regarding the punitive damages being contested by watchtower.
from the case law cited in the brief it is demonstrated that the award of punitive damages is on solid legal ground.
although the court had until august 25 to render its decision as to whether the present judgment will be altered and watchtower granted a new trial, the court docket indicates that the court has entered an order already.
-
-
-
41
Candace Conti's Sur-Reply is Very Effective
by DNCall inat oral argument on august 13th, the court requested additional briefing from candace regarding the punitive damages being contested by watchtower.
from the case law cited in the brief it is demonstrated that the award of punitive damages is on solid legal ground.
although the court had until august 25 to render its decision as to whether the present judgment will be altered and watchtower granted a new trial, the court docket indicates that the court has entered an order already.
-
-
DNCall
It has been posted elsewhere that attorney Shenack is not a Witness. In hiring outside cousel, Watchtower could have engaged a more experienced firm for this type of litigation, but they didn't.
-
41
Candace Conti's Sur-Reply is Very Effective
by DNCall inat oral argument on august 13th, the court requested additional briefing from candace regarding the punitive damages being contested by watchtower.
from the case law cited in the brief it is demonstrated that the award of punitive damages is on solid legal ground.
although the court had until august 25 to render its decision as to whether the present judgment will be altered and watchtower granted a new trial, the court docket indicates that the court has entered an order already.
-
-
DNCall
Not unlike Watchtower' publications' quoting out of context authorities it think's backs it up.
-
41
Candace Conti's Sur-Reply is Very Effective
by DNCall inat oral argument on august 13th, the court requested additional briefing from candace regarding the punitive damages being contested by watchtower.
from the case law cited in the brief it is demonstrated that the award of punitive damages is on solid legal ground.
although the court had until august 25 to render its decision as to whether the present judgment will be altered and watchtower granted a new trial, the court docket indicates that the court has entered an order already.
-
-
DNCall
The order that was entered yesterday may reference the order awarding costs to Candace (around 30K or so), and not the order re Watchtower's JNOV. We may have to wait a few more days for that.
I would also like to point out that the duty of care is the same for any organization, religious or not, namely to protect children who are part of that organization. The Boy Scouts, the high school swim team, the Catholic Church, Penn State University are all held to this standard. This is not a First Amendment issue, such as refusing to salute the flag, or preaching from door-to-door. Basically the judgment is that Watchtower knowingly and maliciously abandoned the duty of care it owed to Candace, in favor of a policy that was thought to make it appear to its members and to the public that it does not have a child abuse problem.
Without a constitutional issue, I think it's doubtful the US Supreme Court would hear a case like this. All further rounds of appeals will accomplish is to further publicize that Watchtower does have a child abuse problem and that it falls woefully short of the standard of care in dealing with it.
BTW, Watchtower has also submitted a brief. If you have the patience to read it, you will see it's all about the money!
-
41
Candace Conti's Sur-Reply is Very Effective
by DNCall inat oral argument on august 13th, the court requested additional briefing from candace regarding the punitive damages being contested by watchtower.
from the case law cited in the brief it is demonstrated that the award of punitive damages is on solid legal ground.
although the court had until august 25 to render its decision as to whether the present judgment will be altered and watchtower granted a new trial, the court docket indicates that the court has entered an order already.
-
-
DNCall
At oral argument on August 13th, the court requested additional briefing from Candace regarding the punitive damages being contested by Watchtower. From the case law cited in the brief it is demonstrated that the award of punitive damages is on solid legal ground. Although the court had until August 25 to render its decision as to whether the present judgment will be altered and Watchtower granted a new trial, the court docket indicates that the court has entered an order already. The content of the order isn't up on the website as yet. It should be up by tomorrow. My guess is that Watchtower's Motion for JNOV and New Trial will be denied in its entirety.
Much of the case law cited in Candace's sur-reply brief is settled appellate law. Should Watchtower appeal, it doesn't look promising for them.
Go Candace (and Rick)!
-
2
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
by DNCall inhas the society ever cited this document in support of its rights?
if so, i hope article 18 didn't escape its notice:.
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:template>normal.dotm</o:template> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>44</o:words> <o:characters>252</o:characters> <o:company>bryan cave llp</o:company> <o:lines>2</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>1</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>309</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>12.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
-
-
DNCall
Has the Society ever cited this document in support of its rights? If so, I hope Article 18 didn't escape its notice:
Article 18 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
From Wikipedia: Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1]The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called "apostasy" —is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
7
Oral Argument Yesterday in Conti v. Watchtower
by DNCall inthe court's order should appear on the alameda county superior court website within the next couple of days.
this is regarding the watchtower's post-trial motion for jnov/new trial.
stay tuned..
-
-
DNCall
The court's order should appear on the Alameda County Superior Court website within the next couple of days. This is regarding the Watchtower's post-trial motion for JNOV/New Trial. Stay tuned.
-
183
What are your favourite movie lines/quotes????
by karter in''well there's one thing you got ta ask yourself punk....you felling lucky...well do ya punk".....clint eastwood dirty harry.. "it's life jim but not as we know it" capt kirk star treck..
-
-
DNCall
Every line uttered by Sir John Gielgud in "Arthur."
-
27
Candace Conti's Opposition to Watchtower's Motion for JNOV
by DNCall innow on the alameda county superior court website.
guess who's going to win this one..
-
-
DNCall
Gayle: Simons addresses Watchtower's "technicality" arguments very well.
-
27
Candace Conti's Opposition to Watchtower's Motion for JNOV
by DNCall innow on the alameda county superior court website.
guess who's going to win this one..
-
-
DNCall
As I understand it, this is a post-trial motion. It's purpose is to have the trial court reverse or reduce an unfavorable judgment and grant a new trial in the trial court. Regardless of the outcome, Watchtower has the right to then make an appeal to the Calfiornia State Court of Appeal.
What strikes me about this is how Watchtower's legal department could have hired a law firm that specializes in this kind of action, if for no other reason than Mr. Simons' firm is very experienced in this area. Since this is the first time these issues have not settled out of court, Watchtower has never had to defend itself on this level.
In reading both briefs you get the impression that the Watchtower's papers are narrow in scope compared to the broader arguments brought by Simons. Whereas Watchtower focuses on issues that may appear to favor them, Simons more thoroughly and accuratly revisits the primary matters at issue in the trial. Simons argues that Watchtower misinterprets case law in its motion.
Also, a post-trial motion of this type puts Watchtower at odds with the judge and the court that it is challenging. That same judge will rule on Watchtower's motion. I believe Watchtower's reply to Simon's opposition is due next week. Should be interesting.