Bookmark and Share

Viewed 5657 times

Conti: WTS Motion re Appeal Bond - WTS Motion 10/26, Conti's Opposition 11/02, WTS Reply 11/06

    M DNCall posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:14:11 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 204 of 362
    Joined 4/8/2008

    Phizzy posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:22:36 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 2085 of 6521
    Joined 12/17/2011

    ??

    M RubaDub posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:51:03 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 2938 of 3701
    Joined 1/20/2003

    Great point.

    Thanks for the info.

    Rub a Dub

    M SadElder posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:26:04 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 453 of 496
    Joined 6/24/2003

    Please try again

    M wha happened? posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:40:49 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 8668 of 10466
    Joined 10/2/2004

    Hey big guy, we're all waiting on the news

    ziddina posted Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:43:28 GMT(10/24/2012)

    Post 11234 of 10450
    Joined 4/8/2009

    watch

    M DNCall posted Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:40:47 GMT(10/25/2012)

    Post 205 of 362
    Joined 4/8/2008

    I posted this at work and for some reason I can only get the subject line to post. Knowing that, I simply laid out the briefing schedule in the subject line so that you will know when to check the Alameda Superior Court website. Usually the briefs post the day after they are due.

    F AnnOMaly posted Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:14:14 GMT(10/25/2012)

    Post 2826 of 4158
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Thanks DNCall. I'm also keen to see both sides lay out their arguments for and against substituting WTS property as surety instead of having a cash bond, and how much of a cash reduction (if the substitution is denied) the WTS is asking for. I have the 'Register of Actions' page permanently open!

    00DAD posted Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:31:00 GMT(10/25/2012)

    Post 4179 of 5183
    Joined 7/29/2011

    DNCall, thanks for clarifying. I was beginning to wonder if your posts were invisibly present!

    F AnnOMaly posted Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:18:32 GMT(10/26/2012)

    Post 2831 of 4158
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Here's the latest.

    10/26/12Motion Filed by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., a Corporation, The North

    </form>

    http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=jsp/imgviewer.html&rofadt=10/26/12&Action=27990835

    Summary

    If the court does not grant the property substitution, the WTS want the bond to be reduced to compensatory damages only. This, the WTS argue, is to minimize the bond premiums which the Plaintiff would be liable for if they won the appeal. They also think that the punitive damages part is more susceptible to reversal.

    The rest is kind of as I suspected:

    The $86,000 premium on the bond is annual and not refundable after December 18. Obviously, if the appeal takes two years, they'll be paying at least twice that amount, ("estimated to be $170,000 to $200,000 over the life of this appeal") hence the desire to substitute property as security instead.

    Patterson is currently worth over $162 million. The WTS argues that using Patterson as surety will benefit the Plaintiff because it is "more that adequate security for the prompt payment of the Amended Judgment" if she prevails on appeal, as well as relieving her of the liability of having to pay back the bond premiums if she doesn't. Despite the attractiveness of that, the Plaintiff declined to agree to the substitution.

    If the court granted the substitution of Patterson, the WTS understands that there would be an order in place not to sell, transfer title or encumber the property involved.

    I may have missed some other interesting details as I only quickly went through it.

    M DNCall posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:03:03 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 207 of 362
    Joined 4/8/2008

    Excellent summary Ann!

    Scott77 posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:23:27 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2413 of 3425
    Joined 4/3/2009

    AnnOMaly,

    Thanks for the summary. I do not want any more dramma whether AnnOMaly is correct or not. Iam not interested in reading a court document. I dislike that guy who come up from nowhere and start hijacking other's thread that so and so was omitted out and that so and so is factually inaccurate. That guy should rather start own 'factual and accurate' thread rather than jumping on what others have started. Iam very tired and sick of them. For those of you who unfamiliar with this beautful building, please see below;

    Watchtower Educational Center — Patterson, NY,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdrH_pnfEzE

    Scott77

    M 144001 posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:52:43 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2635 of 3011
    Joined 6/24/2002

    Scott77,

    Read "Posting Guideline" 10, below. Your hatred for others is not the subject of this thread.

    cedars posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:56:52 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 4492 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Thanks AnnOMaly. Two things stand out to me reading these latest documents...

    1. They have dropped all reference to "immediate irreparable harm and hardship" altogether, even though this very drastic and specific wording featured quite prominently in the first motion documents. Why is that?
    2. Secondly, they have worded the documents in such as way as to make it sound like they are doing Candace a favor by relieving her of the burden of having to pay back the bond premium if they win, even though (1) such an outcome is by no means certain, and (2) Candace has already clearly indicated that she wants the bond to be paid in cash, not property. This is her issue to worry about, not theirs. They are effectively saying "the Plaintiff doesn't know what's good for her and has turned this offer down, but we know better because we believe we will win the appeal". I don't think this will go down well with the Judge at all.

    Another thing I would like some clarification on... they say the $17m bond is "filed and posted". Does this mean they've already paid it in full? The first documents gave the distinct impression that the bond was due to be paid in installments from November/December onwards. If they've definitely handed the money over, then I will obviously need to acknowledge my mistake in my article - because it sounded in the original documents like they were trying to get out of paying the bond using the premium as an excuse. If someone with legal knowledge could clarify this specific matter, I would be grateful.

    In any case, the whole thing smacks of strategizing. I think the Judge will see it that way too.

    Cedars

    M wha happened? posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:57:20 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 8756 of 10466
    Joined 10/2/2004

    uh, who is "that guy"?

    Scott77 posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:24:48 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2414 of 3425
    Joined 4/3/2009

    "...If someone with legal knowledge could clarify this specific matter, I would be grateful..."
    cedars

    Mr. cedars,

    I thought that was a good invitation. However, I think, it would be even more interesting to limit to only those who are trained Attorneys or Lawyers. Specifically, exclude certain individuals whose only goal is to ruin a beautful thread such as this one.

    Scott77

    F AnnOMaly posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:08:01 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2833 of 4158
    Joined 8/11/2003

    1. They have dropped all reference to "immediate irreparable harm and hardship" altogether, even though this very drastic and specific wording featured quite prominently in the first motion documents. Why is that?

    They have dropped all reference to "immediate irreparable harm and hardship" because it no longer applies - they are having their motion heard. If their motion was not heard and decided on before the deadlines for the premium were up, they would have suffered "immediate irreparable harm and hardship."

    Secondly, they have worded the documents in such as way as to make it sound like they are doing Candace a favor by relieving her of the burden of having to pay back the bond premium if they win, even though (1) such an outcome is by no means certain, and (2) Candace has already clearly indicated that she wants the bond to be paid in cash, not property. This is her issue to worry about, not theirs. They are effectively saying "the Plaintiff doesn't know what's good for her and has turned this offer down, but we know better because we believe we will win the appeal". I don't think this will go down well with the Judge at all.

    They are, in a sense, doing her a favor BUT it is more to do with doing themselves a favor. I don't believe for one minute that this is really for Candace's benefit. I don't know if anybody remembers that case many years ago where another abuse victim lost her civil case and the WTS pursued her for costs, adding insult to injury? Ouch! I don't think she was in a position to pay. I can't remember the outcome (did they drop it in the end? Must do a search on JWN - details escape me)*. They will not be able to recover the premiums from Candace either. Win or lose, they will be at a financial disadvantage if they cannot use their property as surety instead of cash. That's how I understand it anyway.

    they say the $17m bond is "filed and posted". Does this mean they've already paid it in full?

    Yes, they've set up the bond. Otherwise the Court wouldn't have rescinded the order curtailing WT of NY movements of property and cash. See,

    09/21/12 Undertaking on Appeal Filed for Debtor

    09/27/12 Order Stipulation To Vacate Orders Staying Enforcement of Judgment Filed

    It's the premiums (a kind of insurance on the bond, I think) they are quibbling about. They're trying to save themselves $86/170/200 grand.

    Scott77 - somebody legally trained who could comment on this would be a distinct advantage but, failing that, you just need reading comprehension skills to get a rough idea of what's going on.

    * Edit: I was thinking of the Vicki Boer case. She won but the Judge ordered her to pay the WTS's legal costs. However, the WTS dropped their action in pursuit of costs a couple of months later.

    cedars posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:20:56 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 4493 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Thanks AnnOMaly...

    If they've already paid the bond in full, then it's this line in the original Ex Parte that I have a problem with...

    (Lines 26 and 27 of page 4 of the Ex Parte)

    "However, no hearing dates for a motion are available until late January 2013 - well after the bond payments begin."

    Thoughts?

    Cedars

    F AnnOMaly posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:27:13 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 2834 of 4158
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Which 'Ex-Parte'? Do you have a date for that?

    No wait ... I'll find it.

    cedars posted Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:28:28 GMT(10/27/2012)

    Post 4494 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    Yes, it's the one dated October 18th - the document on which I based the article.

    Cedars

      Close

      Confirm ...