There are two types of appeals courts. First ones that doesn't have a choice on the cases that they hear, which is what the first appeals court is. Currently, the Padron case is being heard by the California 4th Circuit Court of Appeals 1st District. The second type of Appeals court is the type that is allowed to choose what cases they will hear, which is the Calfornia State Supreme Court. When an Appeals court hears a case and makes a ruling that becomes a precedent for lower courts that they have jurisdiction over, such as for the 4th Circuit in California would include most of San Diego County, but those precedents are not mandatory for courts outside of their jurisdiction. A lawyer can still bring up that precedent even though they are not in the Appeals Court Jurisdiction but it wouldn't be a mandatory precedent but it would be a persuasive precedent. A lawyer would be able to show that another court ruled a certain way, the court that the lawyer is currently before can choose to go along with the precedent or ignore it completely. The only way that Watchtower could get all State courts in California to consider them as clergy when it comes to clergy-penitent privilege would be if the State Supreme Court took the case. And the only way for the US Supreme Court to rule on a case would be if (1) there is a federal constitutional question (2) the State Supreme Court has already ruled on the case. The other way for Watchtower to get the US Supreme Court to rule on it is, for a federal trial court to hear the case, it is appealed to a Federal Appeals Court and then the US Supreme Court can choose to hear the case or not.
Richard Oliver
JoinedPosts by Richard Oliver
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
It depends on the state. Some states recognize elders as having confidential communication and some states don't, the latter being the minority. And yes Watchtower did turn over those redacted documents in the Padron case.
Also in the Lopez case, Watchtower has been prepared to turn over the documents as well, but Zalkin and Lopez will not agree to a stipulation for a protective order.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
Zalkin in the Lopez case was asking for all of Watchtowers documents on child abuse cases that have been reported to them. That was the basis for the 13 million dollar sanction back in 2015. The Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that Lopez and his attorney are entitled to those documents as part of the discovery process. The Court ruled that the documents and files may or may not be admissible in a trial court, they did not decide that part of it. The question before the Appeals Court was, does Lopez have the right to the documents, whether the documents can be used in court or not, and the Court ruled that he is entitled to the documents, even if it is just for a fishing expedition. The Court though never had before them the question of how much of those documents could be redacted, the court ruled that third party information is private and can be redacted by Watchtower. Subsequently, in the Pardon case both sides stipulated to a protective order on the documents. That is what Zalkin talked about in the Trey Bundy interview, that he has all of these documents but he cannot talk about them. The protective order basically states that the plaintiff's attorney and those working with them, in a legally established activity, can look at the documents, read them, and determine how best to use them in their current civil case, but those documents cannot be shared with anyone else nor can they be used in any other legal matter. In fact part of the order is that once the case is resolved within 30 days all the documents must be destroyed by Zalkin.
In the Padron case Watchtower redacted all third party information including abuse victim's names, abuser's names, congregation names, witnesses' names, elder's names and so forth. Zalkin argued that the redaction was too onerous and that the information could not be used. The judge, in that case, asked Zalkin what the purpose of the documents would be used for. Zalkin stated that his intention to use that information was to get statistical data to show a jury that Watchtower has all of these unreported cases. The judge asked why can't you use the redacted information to gather that statistical data, since you are not going to tell the jury third parties personal information. Zalkin responded that he and his investigators want the full information so that they can check to see if Watchtower has provided him with all the information that they have, by checking on legal authority or media reports. In essence he stated that the Court cannot trust Watchtower to turn over all of the documents. Watchtower said that Zalkin is trying to use the information in order to get more clients in suing Watchtower. They point to Lopez, where the plaintiff had no desire to sue or want to even talk about what he went through until Zalkin's investigator-initiated contact with him about what happened to Lopez and encouraged him to become a client of Zalkin.
The other argument that Watchtower is using for keeping the documents redacted is that it would force a California court to rule on the laws of other states. The data that Zalkin is requesting is not limited in time or geographic location but he wants all documents held by Watchtower. Each state has their own laws on child abuse, reporting and priest-penitent privilege along with their own common law precedents which would require the court to rule on those laws.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
That is one of the reasons that Watchtower is fighting to redact information from the reports. Zalkin says that the reason they want the file is to gather statistical data. Even the judge in the Pardon case asked Zalkin if they used a numbering system wouldn't that gather the needed information. Zalkin responded no, he says that the court cannot trust Watchtower in providing all the information that Watchtower may have. Watchtower says that Zalkin only wants the data so that he can fish for new clients. The court of appeals did say in California that a fishing expedition is legal. What Watchtower is saying int he Padron appeal is that third party personal information should be kept confidential, if the plaintiff wants statistical data they are entitled to that data but personal information they are not entitled too.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
If a lawyer works off of contingency it can be based on levels. Some lawyers will say if a lawsuit is awarded the first X number of dollars is at Y percentage, then the second set of dollars is at a different percentage and so on and so forth. So the attorney may be taking a number of different percentages at different award levels all for the same case.
Also, many courts require that plaintiff's at least attempt to settle the case out of court. This is because the back log of the American Judicial System. Also, there is non-binding and binding arbitration and mediation that many courts require plaintiffs and defendants to go through before a case can be docketed. Many times the arbitration and mediation would lead to an automatic non-disclosure agreement because it was not adjudicated in a court.
-
221
Judge sanctions WTS - $4k per day penalty for not producing sex abuse documents
by Simon injudge sanctions jehovah's witnesses.
imposes $4000-a-day penalty for not producing documents in sex-abuse case.
by dorian hargrove, june 24, 2016. a san diego superior court judge has ordered the church of jehovah's witnesses, also known as the watchtower bible and tract society of pennsylvania, to pay $4000 a day for every day that it fails to produce documents requested in a civil lawsuit brought by former parishioner, osbaldo padron, who claims a church elder sexually abused him when he was seven years old.. in a june 23 ruling, expected to be made final today, judge richard strauss admonished the church for willfully ignoring a court order to produce all documents associated with a 1997 body of elders letter that church leaders sent to parishes around the world in a quest to learn about sexual abuse of children by church leaders.. over the course of the past year, the watchtower society and its lawyers have fought hard to keep the letter confidential, claiming that turning over the documents would infringe on the privacy of those mentioned in the letter that were not associated with the case.. in march 2015, the church turned over a heavily redacted version of the letter.
-
-
Richard Oliver
Lopez also filed a motion for sanctions against Watchtower in the Lopez case. Lopez wanted an Ex Parte hearing on sanctions earlier but the Court decided that the motion for sanctions will be heard in oral arguments in April when the motion for summary judgement arguments will be heard as well.
-
221
Judge sanctions WTS - $4k per day penalty for not producing sex abuse documents
by Simon injudge sanctions jehovah's witnesses.
imposes $4000-a-day penalty for not producing documents in sex-abuse case.
by dorian hargrove, june 24, 2016. a san diego superior court judge has ordered the church of jehovah's witnesses, also known as the watchtower bible and tract society of pennsylvania, to pay $4000 a day for every day that it fails to produce documents requested in a civil lawsuit brought by former parishioner, osbaldo padron, who claims a church elder sexually abused him when he was seven years old.. in a june 23 ruling, expected to be made final today, judge richard strauss admonished the church for willfully ignoring a court order to produce all documents associated with a 1997 body of elders letter that church leaders sent to parishes around the world in a quest to learn about sexual abuse of children by church leaders.. over the course of the past year, the watchtower society and its lawyers have fought hard to keep the letter confidential, claiming that turning over the documents would infringe on the privacy of those mentioned in the letter that were not associated with the case.. in march 2015, the church turned over a heavily redacted version of the letter.
-
-
Richard Oliver
C. Failure to Timely File a Brief
1. Court notice. If an appellant’s opening brief or a respondent’s brief is not timely filed, the court will send a notice under rule 8.220(a) (civil cases), rule 8.360(c)(5) (criminal cases), rule 8.412(d) (juvenile delinquency cases), or rule 8.416(g) (juvenile dependency cases). This notice gives a party in a civil or juvenile dependency case an additional 15 days (rules 8.220(a), 8.416(g)), and a party in a criminal or juvenile delinquency case an additional 30 days (rules 8.360(c)(5), 8.412(d)(1)), within which to file the brief.
2. Failure to file in an ordinary civil or a criminal case. If the appellant’s opening brief is not filed within 15 days in an ordinary civil case from the date of the rule 8.220(a) notice, the appeal may be dismissed. (Rule 8.220(a)(1) & (c).) If the appellant’s opening brief is not filed within 30 days in a criminal or juvenile delinquency case, the appeal may be dismissed if the appellant is the People or is the defendant and is not represented by appointed counsel. (Rules 8.360(c)(5)(A)(i), (iii) & (6), 8.412(d)(1)(A)(i), (iii).) If the appellant is the defendant and is represented by appointed counsel on appeal, the court may relieve that appointed counsel and appoint new counsel. (Rules 8.360(c)(5)(A)(ii) & (6), 8.412(d)(1)(A)(ii).) If the respondent’s brief is not filed before the expiration of the time specified in the notice, the court may decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant. (Rules 8.220(a)(2) & (c), 8.360(c)(5)(B) & (6), 8.412(d)(1)(B).)
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
When u are dealing with the law the details do matter.
-
221
Judge sanctions WTS - $4k per day penalty for not producing sex abuse documents
by Simon injudge sanctions jehovah's witnesses.
imposes $4000-a-day penalty for not producing documents in sex-abuse case.
by dorian hargrove, june 24, 2016. a san diego superior court judge has ordered the church of jehovah's witnesses, also known as the watchtower bible and tract society of pennsylvania, to pay $4000 a day for every day that it fails to produce documents requested in a civil lawsuit brought by former parishioner, osbaldo padron, who claims a church elder sexually abused him when he was seven years old.. in a june 23 ruling, expected to be made final today, judge richard strauss admonished the church for willfully ignoring a court order to produce all documents associated with a 1997 body of elders letter that church leaders sent to parishes around the world in a quest to learn about sexual abuse of children by church leaders.. over the course of the past year, the watchtower society and its lawyers have fought hard to keep the letter confidential, claiming that turning over the documents would infringe on the privacy of those mentioned in the letter that were not associated with the case.. in march 2015, the church turned over a heavily redacted version of the letter.
-
-
Richard Oliver
It could be any number of things. But it is common that wires get crossed when inside counsel has to work with outside counsel. It has to be relatively common thing for it to be put into the rules of the appeals court to give an additional 15 days from the notice.
-
182
The Danger of Settlements
by Tech49 ini was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
-
-
Richard Oliver
No, the Conti case was not settled out of court. The case reached a verdict. Watchtower filed a motion to set aside the verdict, the verdict amount was lowered by the trial court. Watchtower appealed the case, and the appeals court lowered the damages down even further. The final amount is recorded in the Appeals court decision.